-9-

My point is simply this: we have used up much of our missile technology. We have drawn heavily on our capital-- the knowledge and experience accumulated by the military services, by industry and by NACA and others over the past 10 years or so. We must replenish that capital with new knowledge. From here on out, space research is going to be a matter of the same determined plugging away that has characterized aeronautics research--and, indeed all scientific endeavor.

As for Russian space achievements, we have learned that while they use their successes effectively for propaganda-- and are able to hide their failures--their public claims have been, to the best of our knowledge, factual. Their scientists, however, are not the giants they would have us believe--they simply started working in this particular field six or seven years before we did. It would be tragic if we had to admit they were working harder today than we. But they have set for us some targets by the success of their efforts thus far announced.

For instance, while we have no information which lead us to believe that the Russians have solved all of the guidance problems I mentioned earlier, obviously their guidance is good and obviously they are not standing still.

One of the most sensible men in our business today is my good friend, Dr. Lee DuBridge, President of the California Institute of Technology. I presume that most of you have read his article in the August issue of *Harper's Magazine*. I think that he offers the most reasonable analysis of our present

-10-

situation that I have seen lately.

Dr. DuBridge reminds us that conditions in space are completely outside all human experience up to now. He points out that the essential elements that sustain life--among them air, water, and food, as well as fuel for the craft--are missing. All these things, including instruments and other kinds of equipment, will have to be carried along with the astronaut, creating the biggest problem in logistics that has ever faced an expedition into the unknown.

Dr. DuBridge goes on to say that at the presently unattainable rate of 93,000 miles per hour--the speed required to overcome the gravitational attraction of the Sun--it would take three weeks to arrive at Mars, more than three years to visit Neptune, and 28,000 years to reach Alpha Centauri, the nearest star.

He emphasizes that maneuvering in space calls for totally new techniques of motion. No object in orbit can overtake another one, or lie in wait for it. Instead, it must be intercepted by a trajectory based on complex calculations, and on adjustments in course and speed of the utmost exactness.

The energy requirements for space vehicles are most formidable, and Dr. DuBridge cites the problem of sending a single man with a minimum amount of equipment (weighing in all about 1 ton) on a trip to the Moon and back. A rocket with about 300,000 pounds of thrust-and we have such rockets--will carry him to the vicinity of the Moon. But the weight of fuel needed to land him on its surface will treble the necessary thrust,

-11-

[LC]

raising it to 900,000 pounds. To bring him back and land him safely on the Earth increases this to at least 5,000,000 pounds of thrust--several times the amount provided by the biggest single rocket engine now under development by NASA.

In spite of these difficulties, and others equally challenging to engineers and physiologists, Dr. DuBridge is not discouraged; nor am I. We share the belief that space exploration by mankind within the Solar System is both feasible and necessary--that it is indeed inevitable--and that it may offer rewards enough, in knowledge and in practical benefits yet unknown, to keep humanity occupied for the next hundred years. We recognize that the total cost will be colossal, but that the unforeseen--and unforeseeable--dividends, spread out over the years, will justify the cost.

Some Americans, as I and no doubt many of you have learned, have quite a different outlook. The other morning I had breakfast in the coffee shop of a Washington hotel. Two men were at an adjoining table. One was in a table-banging temper. When he mentioned what he called "this space folderol," I naturally pricked up my ears. I confess that I eavesdropped a little, which wasn't hard since he had a powerful voice and made no attempt to lower it.

Among other things, he said--and I quote--"We had a three-inch rain in Washington last Saturday. So what happened? The drains need working over so badly that a good deal of the city was flooded. People had to swim away from their cars.

"Now," he went on to say, "with a situation like that,

-12-

right here in Washington, why in the name of common sense are
so many millions being spent on such nonsense as shooting a
lot of hardware to the Moon? Who cares about the Moon? There's
plenty to do down here without wasting money on things like
that."

There is of course, a fundamental difference between
solving the problem of overloaded storm drains and sewers in
Washington and conducting research and development in space.
For the drainage problem there is a ready solution needing only
money to complete the loop. Research in space and the develop-
ment of useful applications of knowledge gained through that
research requires imagination, courage and lots of money. It
may well prove to be one of the most exciting and profitable
ventures of all time. But it is so easy to be carried away
by our own enthusiasms to the point where we begin to ignore
realities. It is obvious that the man I overheard is not
convinced that research, and particularly research in space
holds much promise for him.

Naturally, I do not agree with the gentleman's opinion
about this matter. I do, however, concede that he had a right
to his opinion and I am afraid that there are many others like
him--persons who are less than excited over trips to the Moon
and the building of way stations in space. Our problem--yours
and mine--is to be as responsible as possible in our public
utterances in this field. Overstatements of wonders that are
to come may be exciting to some people--but I seriously doubt
that those on whose understanding we must depend for continuing

-13-

[LC]

support will be thus convinced.

Speaking of support—you will note that I have said nothing directly about costs. That is a story in itself with which most of you have some familiarity. I would say only that space program costs will increase substantially in the years ahead if we are permitted to carry out the programs now believed to be desirable and necessary in both the civilian and military fields.

If you term this a sobering picture, I have made my point. But I do not intend it to be a pessimistic one. Our horizons will be bounded only by the limits of our imaginations, our ability to perform responsibly the tasks we undertake and by our ability thus to convince the Congress and the public of the worth and urgency of our programs. It is high adventure we are experiencing—let us be worthy of our trust.

****

NASA Release No. 59-207