News Conference on Russian Space Shot

8/7/2019 News Conference on Russian Space Shot

1/27

MONICK/c

NEWS RELEASENATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION400 MARYLAND AVENUE, SW, WASHINGTON 25, D.C.TELEPHONES. WORTH 2-4155-WORTH 3-1110

m e FOR RELEASE: IMMEDIATE3:30 p.m., 15 August 1962RELEASE NO. 62-185

NEWS CONFERENCE ONRUSSIAN SPACE SHOT

PARTICIPANTS:MR. JAMES E. WEBB, Administrator, NASA.DR. HUGH L. DRYDEN, Deputy Administrator, NASA.DR. ROBERT C. SEAMANS, JR., Associate Administrator, NASA.MR. D. BRAINERD HOLMES, Director, Office of Manned SpaceFlight, NASA.MR. 0. B. LLOYD, JR., Director, Office of Public Services

and Information, NASA.


2/27

wbl 2WEBB,, Ladies and gentlemen we understand that quitea number of you have questions that you would like to askthose of us in the Space Administration who have been concernedwith the manned space program. I thought Mr. Brainerd Holmeswould be here. We are trying to find out whether he got delayedsomewhere on the way.As I am sure ail of you know,, we have hereDr. Hugh Dryden, Deputy Administrator, and Dr. Robert Seamans,Associate Administrator here.If you have questions, let us have them. If heyare for Mr. Holmes, we will expect him in just a few moments.QUESTION: Mr. Webb, first (question- Do you thinkthat the Russians hoped actually to link up these two shipsin a completion of the actual rendezvous technique?WlEBB: The detailed review of the Russian flightshas been made by Dr. Dryden more completely than it has by

either Dr. Seasans or myself. I think that you would have abetter answer from him, if that is satisfactory to you.Here is Mr. Holmes no*.DRYDEN: The answer is very simple. I can t readthe Russian mind any more than you can. I just don"t know.QUESTION: Mr. Webb, sir, Bernard Lovell in Englandsaid this morning that on the basis of this double orbit, byRussia so far, he doubted whether Am1erica could catch up

within a decade. Do you have any comment?WEBB: You will bAve to evArlujte Pr, Lovell's state-ment for yourself. I differ with f1m. I think the key -- andagain you will have to bear in mind that 4s ao administratorI am not weighing the details of the tectnicat problemsinvolved -- looking at the build-up of some of the bigger pro-grass of the United States, with biSch I have beea involved,from the first Greek/Turkish aid program, on through theMilitary Assistance Prograa which, I would like to remind you,was a billion and a half dollars the trset year, I would saythat we have under way a larger, on-going,, tast-pace program.One of the essential el~eaents ol PresidentKennedy's decision a year ago was to build bikg hosters, Inthe intervening time we hAve put und-er crontTe: t0 mbobilizethe resources not only of the gove rent bult of a large


3/27

number of kmerican companies, the various stages of the bigboosters required to give us great capacity in space. Thiswork is going forward, It will produce results in thisdecade that I believe will put the United States in a satis-factory position in space.QUESTION! Mr. Holmes, I would like to ask you ifyou were surprised by this twin flight, and do you feel itmeans that the Russians can beat us to the moon now?QUESTION; I can't hear the question,QUESTION. The question is-, Was Mr. Holmes sur-prised by the Soviet flight, and does he feel it means theycan beat us to the moon?

%LMLES, No, I wasn't surprised. I certainly didn'texpect the exact thing that they did. On the other hand, ifone analyzes what they did, I think we would be selling theRussians nretty short it we didn't Heel that a year after theylaunched a Vostok on a booster that could lift that kind of aweight, something of the order of 10,000 pounds, that theycouldn't indeed perform in this fashion.

I think a much more significant way to look atthis when people say are they ahead of us and does this meanthey are so many years ahead, is that we are working in adevelopment program where the work that one does todaydoesn't reach fruition for several years, and the work theyhave done today or in the last few days is work that theyhad been doing over the past years. I don't think it hasany particular significance on our race to the moon.

QUESTIION: Is there any evidence that they used abigger booster to do this job with?PRYfOEN; The answer is no, May I supplement thiswith just one statementSo many people think that going to the moon is goingdown a one-way street, passing successive street corners.It is very far from that. It is the mobilization of a largetask force with a lo t of jobs to be done and brought tofruition simultaneously. It doesn't make much difference inwhich order you do them. The fact that the Russians havedone one part of this job ad little head of us does not meanthat they are ahead on thp who!te te.trprisc of goiuy it iue'noon.


4/27

b,; 4'WLBBt I would like to go back just one momentto this question of what the Russians may have intended.I think it iF iL.;,oortant to recognize that theircapability is one thing. -hat they may intend to do isanother. It is very difficult to judge from the evidenceprecisely what they might intend. I think all of you knov;that most of the announcements that they have made aboutactual accomplishments in space have been borne out by the

weight of evidence; and we have so announced, as officialsof this government from time to time.1 don't believe they have announced that theyintended to join the spacecraft.QUESTION- Wr, Webb, along that same line, if I nay:Has our tracking system confirmed the Soviet version of theflight of the two cosmonauts?WEBB: Again I would like to refer that to

Dr. bryden.IORYf)EN: I think I would say that I don't thinkthat we should discuss how much or how little we confirm.I will simply make the statement that the knowledge availableto us does confirm that they launched the two ships, as theysaid; that they were launched within a very short time ofeach other; that they made what Chairman Khrushchev describedas a group flight, and I call your attention to his choiceof words. I am convinced myself that if they had made any-thing like a rendezvous that they would announce itimmediately.QUESTIMN {'r, Dryden, are you saying that theyfired a couple of men --W.BBt Wait a minute,There are two questions, Can we let Dr. Seamanshave a quick comment there?SFAMTN.- 1 would add to what Dra Dryden said.He didn't mean that they both left terra ftrwa at exactlythe same time, but rather that the second spacecraft waslauuched very close to the intended time, so that it souldend up in orbit clse to the first spacecraft.QU..'T1)N' 'ire are you saying. then, that shat they


5/27

Ab4 5did sas launch a couple of manned cannonballs into space onvery close orbit, but that apparently they did not try toadjust the orbits once in space with on-board propulsion?

DRYDEN: I do not know whether they adjusted theorbits or not,QUESTION! Why can we not get American trackingdata on that? Apparently the Russians know what they did.

Why shouldn't the American people find out what they did?DRYDEN: I think your question is a good one.I think I have given you the information which is solid.They have done what they said they did. I do not knowwhether they did anything more than this at the present time.QUESTION: Dr. bryden, what do you think was their

intent? What do you think they meant by "group flight"?DRYDEN: Group flight means two things flying

together, like two airplanes in group formation.QUESTION, Is there any advantage to sending twomen up in --DRYDEN; The stated objective of the Russians, asI understand it, was to subject two men to identical spaceexposures, and weightlessness, to see whether there wasany effect on the particular individual. This was announced,I believe, in the news from Moscow as the primary purpose ofthe flight, plus the obvious one of longer duration, which

is needed to do thisoQUESTION; Dr. Dryden, we know we have a radartracking network --WEBB: We had a question xrom the back ahead ofyou, please.QUESTION: In other words, do you fear, Dr. Dryden,there might be military implications?DRYDEN: No, any more than there is military impli-cations in any activity in space. I think the Russians did

a thoroughly professional job in the launching of these twosatellitesh1YEBB: Certainly this technology is a base for


6/27

wb5 6military potential. The real question, I think, is at whattime and in what manner will a decision be reached with respectto specific military missions and operations. I think thisbasically is the question.

This technology, just as our own technology, is thefoundation for many things. The question of whether thisparticular flight would have military significance I wouldthink ought to be answered by the military people perhaps morethan by us. We regard it as a demonstration of very realtechnical capacity.

Would you want to add anything to that, Bob?SEAMANS: No, I think it is well stated.QUESTION: Mr. Webb, in connection with your answerbefore, just to clarify this, you were asked whether you

thought we would be ahead of the Russians, and you said youthought in the next decade we would be in a satisfactoryposition Could you answer specifically whether you think inthe next decade we will be ahead of the Russians?

WEBB: I think what I was asked is whether I agreedwith another statement saying that we couldn't possibly catchup in the next ten years

I think you must think of these programs, if youare thinking at the policy level, of the resources to beinvested, of the reaction you may have to any one of thesestreet corners that you pass going down the street, asDr. Dryden has characterized it.

My own belief is that the bringing to bear throughthe resources that the government is applying, the utiliza-tion of those resources to mobilize industry will give us aposition satisfactory to the United States, Whether you saywill we be ahead with respect to some specific kind of anevent, I think we will make the manned lunar landing andreturn before they do.

QUESTION: Mr. Webb, I don't know whether I shoulddirect this to you or Dr. Dryden. There have been varyingreports, none from Russia of course, about the size andweight of the two latest spacecraft, One Danish newspapertoday, a Communist newspaper, said it was 8-1/2 tons. Doyou have any -. naforsation as to whether the two latest


7/27

7spacecraft were actually larger and heavier than the previousones of Gagarin and Titov?

WEBB, I believe Dr. Dryden answered that before.DRYDEN: We have no definite information. As youknow, the former Vostok was 10,000 pounds. We know that thesame booster has put 14,000 pounds in orbit in the Venusshot.QUESTION: Does the fact they were exercising andmoving around in the cabin indicate it was a larger cabin?DRYDEN: The television pictures I saw didn'tindicate any possibility of moving around. They could stir

in the chair and lean over, but I did not see any evidencethat they could move around in the sense of walking around.QUESTION: Dr. Dryden, were there any indientionsthat any forces other than natural decays througL

atmospheric drag were operating on these two Russian satel-lites from the moment they were injected until the momentthey cane back? Did they have on-board rocket propulsion?DRYDEN: I do not know, from anything that I haveseen.QUESTION: I would like to ask Dr. Holmes if he

sees in tae tracking data from the Soviet flight any tip-offto the techniques they are going to use for a lunar voyage;and, if he does, whether or not it gives him any doubts aboutour progress

HIOLMES: No, on all counts.WEBB; You see, you can't read the outline of abroad program from one event in the program. One of theRussian cosmonauts stated, as reported in the press, that

this was like the first steps of a baby. You can't tellwhich baby will win the race in the track meet at age 16or 18 from the first steps taken. This is their owncharacterization. It is not a bad one.


8/27

htl8

DRYDEN: I think if you just look at the record, ithas been a little over a year since any manned activity by theRussians until this present flight.

QUESTION: Dr. Dryden, could you tell us the significanceof that last statement? What is the significance of that?

DRYDEN: Well, it has not been a vigorously pushedactivity program. There have been no flights since about ayear ago.

QUESTION: Is there any indication they had failures,attempted flights?DRYDEN: I know of none.QUESTION: Dr. Dryden, can we just clear up the other

point cf Dr. Lcvell's comment, which was that from a technologicalviewpoint he thought that the Russians could now knock down orremove any American satellite at a moment in orbit.

DRYDEN: I think there are easier ways than this ofdoing that.QUESTION: What does that mean?DRYDEN: Well, if you decided you wanted to knockdown satellites, I don't think you would do it by sending upa manned satellite at the moment.QUESTION: Dr. Dryden, if they tried to go to themoon by putting together a dozen or so Vostoks, how long doyou think it would take them?DRYDEN: I don't know. Your estimate is about the

same as mine. If you use the figures of 10,000 and 14,000pounds, it would take at least seven to ten loads put togetherto go to the moon.

QUESTION: NASA rejected this approach of multiplerendezvous. Why did NASA reject that approach if it isfeasible, or is it feasible at all?

SEAMANS: It represents a very difficult problem totake up exactly the right elements so that they will all nicelyfit together and can be nicely checked Omi tn. orTbt befc:c


9/27

I, n I4flt

9going to the moon.DRYDEN: I Waink some of you asked about thesignificance from a rendezvous point of view. This attempt,if it was an attempt, represents the simplest case where youlaunch both vehicles from t1e same launch region, with the

same facilities and tle same orbital plane.It is a little bit more difficult problem to changeorbital plane and to rendezvous with an object which is not in

the same orbital plane. In other words, this is the firststep;assuming that it is the first step in rendezvous, thereis still a lot more to be done before rendezvous is accomplished.QUESTION: Is there any possibility of rendezvousingoutside of a different plane than the one originally projected?If so, about how many degrees out of phase coulr it rendezvous?DRYDEN: I don't know. These twfi orbits, as you

know, were within two minutes of the same inclination, anddiffering only a few miles in the orbital elements.QUESTION: Couldn't there be a takeoff for the moonfrom such an orbit?DRYDEN: Not manned. It takes a weight, as my friend

out here estimated, he said 12 times -- I said 7 to 10 times -- ;the load of one of these boosters.

QUESTION: Dr. Seamans, or Dr. Holmes, I wonder ifyou would comment on the accuracy of the guidance involved,and also the ability, the apparent ability of the Russians todo this on the first crack. Is this by any means a criticismof our own program?

SEAMANS: My understanding is that as far as guidanceaccuracy is concerned, what they achieved is roughly comparableto what we achieve in our Mercury flights. To me the significantelement here is that on the second flight they were able totake off within a limited period of time.

As you all know who have covered these flights,countdowns can be protracted for one reason or another.

DRYDEN: You might spell that out in a little moredetail. If you look at the orbital elements of the Glennflight and the Carpenter flight, they are within the limitsshown by these two spacecraft, although they were launched atdifferent times.


10/27

3ht10QUESTION: Mr. Webb, you mentiond a few minutes agoabout the resources we ate devoting to our program. Do youthink we are devoting enough resources if, as you say, weare going to beat the Russians to the moon?.

WEBB: This is a very difficult question. Tahis govern-ment is a representative government. The programs of the govern-ment were outlined by the President in his budget, recommended,by him to the Congress, then passed on by the Congress. ThePresident has weighed the requirements of this program as againstall others in the government. Re has made his recommendations.The Congress has in a bipartisan way almost unanimously approvedtboserecommendations.Under the first recommendations made last year, whichstepped the program up to about $1.7 billin, arcd did includea driving effort to build big boosters and a family of mannedspacecraft, we made treandous progress over the past year.We have gotten the Mercury moving toward a one-day

mission, we have got the Gemini under contract with the boostersto fly it, we have the Saturn program alivanced rapidly, lookingto an Advanced Saturn with all of the units of tl:S Advsn.ceSaturn already under contract. Tbese are very large accomplish-ments in that period of time.It is this kind of trend that X think indicates thepower that this nation's space program will show. Whether ornot this kind of doubling each year is enough, I would saythat it is going to answer the needs of this nation if tlepresent buildup proceeds.On the other band, there zre other very great needsof the nation and this nation will have to consider, verycarefully, how it utilizes space. At the present moment thepolicy of the government is o operate for a peaceful benefitof mankind program to the maximum extent possible. It has U.military program, but it is not in the mainstream of thisactivity, technological development in a, open way. Whetheryou would have to convert over toward this kind of a majoremphasis on military programs is a decision that will haveto-come with time, depending on all of the elements.If such a thing should have to take place,, undoubtedlygreater resources I think would go into the program.But right now we are going to build a 7.5 millionpound Saturn as rapidly as the industrial might of the United


11/27

i1

4ht 11States can build it, without going in parallel courses ofdevelopment. We might even have to decide to overcome someobstacles with parallel courses, as was done in the ManhattanProject. But I think a very real step-up in the resourcesavailable has been made by this Administration and is havingits effect.QUESTION: Mr. Webb, some of our top Air Forceofficials, General LeMay, for one, have expressed themselvesmany times in recent months saying we are not doing enoughmilitarily in space. Is there anything in these flightswhich would lead you to believe that he has a point?WEBB: The way you phrase yotr question, you areasking me to agree or disagree with General LeMay, who isChief of Staff of the Air Force. I don't really think Iwant to do that. I have stated that the program as outlinedby the President, as endorsed by the Congress and with fundsprovided by the Congress to carry it out, is mainly to

develop the base of research, science, technology that givesus the capacity to utilize that power either militarily orfor other purposes. The policy is to try to utilize it forthese other purposes as long as possible.I can understand the concern of military men aboutthis. T believe, as one administrator in this government,that we do have a balanced way to consider these items.QUESTION: Mr. Webb, if it were your decision, ifyou wanted to do it, could you take over another pad ifthe range people down there made it available to you, andlob two men in two spacecrafts into similar orbits for a24-hour period.WEBB: Within what time period? It takes a gooddeal of time to convert a launch pad from previous use toone of this kind.QUESTION: I mean if a pad were available to you,a second pad, other than 14, could you duplicate what the

Russians did, at least insofar as putting two men in twospacecrafts into a similar orbit pattern?WEBB: I think it is doubtful if the Atlas were thevehicle to be used.QUESTION: Is a further speed-up in our programpossible, and have you four


12/27

5ht 12WEBB: The answer is Yes, a speed-up in the program

is possible. The program, as I have said to the SenateAppropriations Committee last Friday, when requesting therestoration of the funds that were eliminated by the House,I said this is a fast-paced program. It is not a crash programor an all-automatic program. I think that is the way you wouldcharacterize it.

If you want to convert from a very fast paced programthat is utilizing the state of the art as it develops as rapidlyas you can do without an all-out or crash program, that is whatwe now have.

If you want to convert it, we have the capacity. Webuilt an organization of able men. We have tremendous resourcesvrking with us on this program. They could do more.

QUESTION: Have you gentlemen discussed that?WEBB: Yes, we have discussed the problems, thereview of this program. We are continuously discussing thiskind of a question here. We are in very close touch with theDefense Department. Mr. McNamara was ove.. here for lunch afew weeks ago. We go over there. We meet once a month for a

pretty thorough discussion.We are reviewing -- it is no secret from you gentlemen --he and I and the Budget Director are giving very active con-sideration to the total space program looking toward the 1964budget.I would not want to leave the impression that wewould recommend to the President or that he will send to theCongress a supplementalappropriation for the fiscal year 1963.I doubt that that will take place.But again I cannot speak for the President in thatregard. Governments may come that would indicate that. ButI do think that in connection with the continuation of thepresent drive of our on-going program, you could spend money

faster if you wanted to convert it into a program. But thiswould result in rather large budget figures here and in theDefense Department.QUESTION: How large, sir?WEBB: I don't want to try predicting an exact amount,2


13/27

6ht 13this year our program, as recommended by the President, wasabout $3.9 billion, including a supplemental request, Themilitary figures were announced to be about $1.5 billion.You add those together and you are between $5,5 and $6 billionfor this year Por both programs.

If you wanted to convert this to what you might callan all-out program in connection with NASA, you would gobeyond, say, $5-5.5 billion a year. You might go beyond$6 billion a year for this organization.

QUESTION: Could you give us an idea d some of thethings you might do if you were to move from a fast-pace toa crash basis program?

WEBB: I think I should leave it to these gentlemen.I will start the discussion by saying that I think we wouldlook at hydrogen technology on which our upper stages are allbased. We might start some parallel developments in thisarea of hydrogen technology. If we had on upper stage to puton our present Saturn C-1 today, we could do a great deal.This would give us a weight-lifting capacity greater than thatthat has been demonstrated by the Russians up to now.

Maybe other gentlemen here might want to commenton that.

There are probably not other things we would doin the scientific exploration to accumulate the knowledgethat would permit us to generate real power in space. Wehave a good program there and it is on-going. But in thedevelopment of the hardware and the technology, we mightinvest more resources if we wanted to try to get boostcapacity somewhat faster.

QUESTION: When do you expect the Advanced Saturn,and how much time would you gain if you had a crash program?

WEBB: Just a minute. Ile haven't nuite answeredthat question unless you are satisfied with that answer.

HOLMES: I was satisfied with it. I think it wouldbe unrealistic not to say that an all-out crash program,where national survival, where funds you say were unlimitedor secondary, that certainly in parallel developments, youwould work less efficiently by working people more overtime.You would do all this kind of thing which I don't believe


14/27

7ht14

leads to a better program. But if it were that kind of acrash effort that is what you would do and that is whereyou would spend your money.WEBB: We will learn a vast amount from theGemini program not only about extended weightlessness withour men but also with ,respectto the rendezvous technique,Vie will be working in intimate association with the militaryservices who will launch the Atlas and the Agena with which

our craft will rendezvous.The Gemini is now on a two-shift basis, Would youput it on a 2-1/2 shift basis? Actually, when you are doingt.his advanced technology, it is not easy to transfer theparticular job from a man who has worked eight hours duringthe day to a man who is going to work eight hours during thenight and then make another transfer to pick qpthe same jobto do on the third shift. These are the kinds of questionsyou have to consider.You can get more done It will be done inefficiently.se e believe we have a program that marries all o0 the considera-tions in an effective way, and is going to give results thatthe American people will be proud of,QUESTION: ;''hen do you expect to have the AdvancedSaturn C, and when could you get it if you had a crashprogram?iEBBB: Bob, do you want to answer the first part

of that?SEAMANS: 1965, the first part, I don'; knowwhat Brainerd thinks he could do if he had unlimitedtresources.HOLMES: 1965 is surely correct.1i you can tell me how much unlimited resources andwhat the ground rules are, I could give you a new date. Iwouldn't hazard it this way.


15/27

15QUESTION: The only ground rules are in the

context of what we are talking about now, what Mr. Webbreferred to as a crash program?

WEBB: Would you give it a higher priority thansome of our military programs? The is the kind of

question you would have to answer in that regard. Undoubt-edly some of the resources required to advance these bigboosters would cut into the effort now going into militaryprograms and I would like to say, as a matte, of policy,wherever there has been a question of a military programutilizing resources, we have always taken the positionin this Agency and in the Government that that comesa)-::ad of our work in the industrial placing of contracts.

QUESTION: Let me settle it for you. If thepremise were set that it was militarily important to getto the moon in a hurry, and therefore you did get some ofthat money, how much time could ycu save if you had a crashprogram?

WEBB: It isn't money. It is a question ofchanging men from work on missiles and warheads intobuilding big boosters. That is the kind of question.

SEAMANS: I think it ought to be clear that theAdvanced Saturn is being developed in a very agressivefashion. It does have a DX priority. I am sure that youcan always save a few months of time, but no matter howmuch effort on it, you are not going to save very muchtime.

QUESTION: In other words, even with a crashprogram --

SEAMANS: What you are really doing is providinggreater assurance of meeting a particular target date,rather than of guaranteeing that you are going to speedit up.

Hz MES: Optimistically, it will be six monthsto a year. It is that sort of thing.

QUESTION: The best you can do with a crashprogram is six months to a year?

HOLMES: On the Advanced Saturn.


16/27

16WEBB: I think you must bear in mind that this

program now, and the manpower going into it, is doublingevery year and has done so for the last several years. Itwill double again with the money now being appropriated bythe Congress. The question is, do you want to do morethan double every year. This is a great national decision.

QUESTION: Mr. Webb, you say that we are goingto land a man on the moon before the Russians. Mr. Holmessaid that the two men just sent up didn't have any signi-ficance in the moon race. But in the past few days a lotof people, scientists and laymen, have taken the oppositeview, that the Russians are pulling ahead rather than ourcatching up, and they don't see any event, any program thatwill be a point when we will catch and overtake the Russians.

WEBB: First I said that my opinion is that wewill meet the date set by President Kennedy of making thelanding in this decade, and I think we will do it, con-sidering all of the resources we are putting into it inadvance of the Russians. That is really what I said.

The second, I don't think Mr. Holmes said therewas no significance in connection with the lunar programof the flights made by the Russians. These, as I statedearlier, are demonstrations of a very real technologicalcapacity, an ability to plan and engineer and build andfly vehicles that can carry men for extended periods oftime, They have this significance of advancing one morestep of thee first, you might almost say, steps of aninfant out into space, the infant human race. They dohave significance. So I wouldn't say they have no signi-ficance.

The people who have been making statements thatthis has more significance than we believe it has have tospeak for themselves. You have to judge them on the basisof their knowledge. de are responsible government officialshere giving you the best we can as to what the situationreally is.

QUESTION: That point in the program, or whataccomplishment do you see the United States able to dobefore the Russians are able to do it? What year will thatbe in?

WEBB: Let me add one point to the previousstatement.


17/27

c3 17You see, in this country we have had a tendency

for a great many people over a period of years who felt weought to have a progress to rush out with a great many state-ments about the need ior a program and where we stand andcatastrophic events that would come if no program weredeveloped. A good many of these people are still sort ofmaking speeches related to the past without relating themto the on-going drive and force of this stream of effortthat is now going in. So I think you have got to judgethem against the program as you know it, as it has beenreleased, as we have presented it to the Congress.

With respect to the specific items that youasked, when will we do one thing or another ahead of them,I don't know what they are going to do. We were ratherexpecting a multi-manned flight at some time. I havestated many times, and so have my colleagues, that theywould probably do a multi-manned orbital flight around theEarth before we could. They will probably do a circum-lunar multi-manned flight before we had the booster capacityto do it. But when it comes to doing all of the thingsrequired to make a landing on the moon and return, ourprogram was going to develop the power to do that aheadof them. They may take a different tack than anything thatwe have indicated.

We ourselves may change our program. We havepointed out very, very clearly that we are developingtechnological capacity and that we are going to be guidedby the developments that occur, that we are running aflexible program, and that we will, if we run into aninsuperable obstacle in one area, we will move over anddo something else. So I don't think you can match upthe planned schedule which we have announced with some,say, speculation as to what their planned schedule maybe.

QUESTION: Dr. Seamans, there are increasingscientific and engineering doubts being weighed now thatwe may be over--programmed; that with Mercury, Gemini, andApollo, and a versatile booster of unmanned satellites,we may be attempting to whack off too big a piece at onceand we could get there a lot faster if we simplified ourprograms. What is your answer to that?

SEANIANS: My answer to that is that we havevery carefully reviewed the Mercury, the Gemini, and thea conserted effort that would


18/27

, 4 18think they all play a very real role in the total mannedspace effort, and we would be most reluctant to give upany part of the program. We feel that we are learning aswe go along with the Mercury up to one day, with Gemini,with several astronauts up to a week or more with rendez-vous capability, and then with Apollo. If you notice theway the program is organized, no one of these projects iscontingent upon the other in the sense that one contractorhas several of these jobs and hence might serve as abottleneck.

QUESTION: But are you not diffusing yourscientific manpower and budget by so many things?

DRYDEN: Let me try a hand at that.When the Space Agency was formed we took over

the then existing Saturn project. This is now goingforward. In a year or two we will be flying this.

The only way to advance space flight is tofly. And the astronauts of the United States cannot relyon the flight experience of the astronauts of some othercountry.

If you stopped Mercury and Gemini, you woulddo nothing in the way of space flight until the othervehicles came along. i'le are using what we have got. Weare using Atlas, Tit.:n in the Gemini program. You can'tuse a booster that you don't have. And it does not seemwise to szop all manned space flight until you have theC-5, for example. This just doesn't make any sense.

Wie couldn't suspend our operations, close downall our tracking teams for eighteen months and then tryto revive it again. Just because somebody else in anothercountry flies an airplane, we don't stop training our pilotsand say they have flown, there aren't all these mysteriouseffects. us e have to get the experience with our own people.And to get the experience we have to keep flying.

WEBB: Let me take one little cut at that. Wehave talked a lot about big boosters. When we planned theMercury program, the Atlas was the biggest booster we had.iffhen the Titan became available, we planned the Geminiprogram to use the Titan and which was the biggest boosteravailable to us and put under development the AdvancedSaturn which will give us a ten times bigger booster.


19/27

c5 19So we are actually using the biggest boosterswe have to get the biggest manned spacecTaft into use as

early as possible.I think Dr. Dryden alluded to that, but I wouldlike to put it in those terms.QUESTION: Dr. Dryden, aside from whateverSoviet planning or intent might be involved, what do youthink their chances are, capability-wise, to circumlunar

flight without landing on the moon? Are they close to it?DRYDEN: I think I have been telling you andthe Congress for years that there is a possibility that theSoviets can do circumlunar flight before we can. I once

said there is a fifty-fifty chance, certainly no betterthan that, that we could do that as early as they can. Itis for this reason, in fact, that our national goal wasset at the lunar flight because this does require anotherbooster on the part of the Russians as well as ourselves.

Ever since the Space Agency has been formedwe have been waiting for this other shoe to be dropped.People have told us every month, the Russians are going

a to produce this big booster in the next few months. Nowfour years have gone by and they have not yet shown usthis big booster. To the best of our knowledge they havedeveloped lighter-weight nuclear weapons and ballisticmissiles rather than bigger space boosters. This is notto say that they may not be doing this. All I am sayingis that they will require a bigger booster to land menon the moon, and it was largely for that reason, I think,that the goal was selected that far into the future.

QUESTION: Dr. Dryden, what would your guess beabout what the next Soviet mission would be? We didn'tgo very far wrong with our guess on this one, We said amulti-manned mission, one man in two vehicles. What wouldyour gAess be about the next one?

DRYDEN: I don't really know. They may, ofcourse, continue along the line of development of a rendez-vous. We don't know exactly what their experience has beenwith these two men. All we know is that they have survivedit. We know nothing as yet about the effects which havebeen measured on the two men.

I think that it is possible now that they willmove to a multi-manned mission of some sort with more than


20/27

c6 20are available to them would seem to make this possible.

QUESTION: Would NASA find this kind of groupflight useful?DRYDEN: Not as a step in c/ur program at thepresent trimne. This brings to ;mind th8' fact that our own

Rendezvous experiments are planned between a manned vehicleand an unmanned vehicle. It is not necessary that the

rendezvous be between two manned vehicles.QUESTION: Do you think it is possible this wasa stunt, something that they could have done before?DRYDEN: The characteristic of the Russian programhas been to seek for something startling and new. This is

quite correct. Whether you wvant to call this a stunt or not,I don't know. It has moved forward in advancing theirtechnical capabilities. 1 don't think you want to under-estimate that.

QUESTION: There have been proposals, Air Forcein origin, for Air Force crew participation in Gemini orGemini-type flights, and also for a military orbital testsatellite. Can you comment at all on the status of theseproposals in terms of interface --

WEBB: As I have said, we have had the veryclosest coordinated effort. We have many common projects.The X-15 is a concrete examples The Gemini project itselfinvolves their launching of the Atlas and the Agena, theunmanned part of the program.

We have invited them to submit names of astronautsfor the new group. They have done so. And undoubtedly mostof the new astronauts will be men, from our armed services.All of the present ones are.

When you say participation in the crews, all ofthe present crews have come from the Department of Defense.

QUESTION: I didn't mean it that way, sir. Imeant more in terms of programs that would be, or a programthat would be in conjunction with the Gemini program to givespecific military crew experience in orbital space flight.

WEBB: I would say that just as our program,the civilian program, has used nil-tary boosters, if we


21/27

c7 21develop vehicles that are useful to them, all of us inthe government would be most happy for them to use them.

QUESTION: Mr. Webb, one final clarification onspending. You said that a faster rate of spending, fasterthan the doubling each year, could speed up our program.But you haven't said, I think, whether you yourself willrecommend this.

WEBB: You see, I haven't decided exactly whatposition would be in the interest of this Agency, consideringthe total problem. I have to consider the specific thingswe want, but I have to do it in the light of the totalprogram.

Remember, I have to sit as a member of theSpace Council, as well as the Administrator of this Agency.This means a slightly different responsibility than justto advocate a program for this Agency as against allothers.

QUESTION: This Russian flight has not changedyour mind about this rate of spending?

WEBB: No, it has not. I think we have a solidprogram that is going to get a real job done and in fasterorder than most people think, or at least the criticsthink.


22/27

htl 22QUESTION: Mr. Webb, if I heard you correctly, you

have said fairly positively that we will beat the Russiansto the moon?WEBB: I have said in my opinion, considering therapid advance of our program and the resources being devoted

to it, if continued consistently and utilized effectively overthe period of this decade, I think we will make the lunarlanding and return before they do.

QUESTION: Dr. Dryden, if I heard him correctly,said we are not sure where they stand on their boosterprogram. So how do you reconcile this?WEBB: I don't know that we c'an exactly reconcileevery comment that we make here. I am judging as anAdministrator on the basis of what happens when you putlarge resources into a program like this, and my judgment

that it will be very difficult for them to make the rate ofprogress that these resources invested here indicate forus. He may be judging on a technical ground.

QUESTION: But if they started test firing bigboosters tomorrow, it would indicate they might beat us.Is it just optimism?DRYDEN: They would have to man-rate this booster,

as we will.QUESTION: If they started, say, three years -- if

they should start next month, for example, do we actuallyknow -aDRYDEN: There are eight years between now and theend of the decade. If you talk about a lead time of this

much, then intensive effort could make up a gap of thatsort.WEBB: But if they should begin to fly next month,as you say, something like the Saturn C-5, it would undoubtedlychange my mind.QUESTION: I was curious if you had any information

on the state of the art of their boosters, or if the statementwas supported by hope and optimism?WEBB: It is judgment.


23/27

Zht23

QUESTION: Mr. Webb, I am a little uncertain abou 4an earlier question. Did you say that we had tracked theSoviet --

WEBB: No, I didn't say. I referred the questionto Dr. Dryden, and he answered as best he could at the time.

QUESTION: Have we been tracking it?DRYDEN: I think the only statement to make isthis: The NASA tracking system is designed to track our own

vehicles primarily. During this period we have been track-ing seven vehicles, as I see, or eight, including trackingof Echo, which somne citizens still seem to want. This isquite a workload on our network.

We are able, as are many amateurs, to record voiceand telemetry on 20 megacycles, and we are doing some of that 0

QUESTION: Are any government agencies tracking?DRYDEN: You will have to ask the government

agencies involved. It is not our mission to track.{ QUESTION: For how many years will the programdouble annually?WEBB: I think if the decision of the nation is

to -- I doubt in 1964 that the build-up of the program willrequire a doubling. This is a decision the President willihave to make. So I would guess that 1963, without changingthe status of the program, would be the last year thatit would double. But I think the increase for 1964 woaldbe quite substantial, something slightly less than double.

QUESTION: Dr. Dryden, did I understand you correctlythat you believe the Russians could make a circum1unaZ tripwith their present booster and capsule combination?

DRYDEN: It is very marginal. I don't know,QUESTION: How many ships today are the Russianspace people working?DRYDEN: I don't knov%.

QUESTION: Mr. Webb, there has been a growing school


24/27

3ht

of thought until the last weekend that possibly the Russiinshave abdicated on their race to the moon and we are going onour own. Based on last weekend are you convinced that tl-atassumption was erroneous?

WEBB: I don't think you can run the programs ofthe United States on what you describe as the growing feelingaver a period of time. We have a program which is funded bythe Congress, and is proceeding to do the things that weregard as necessary in our national interest, and we expectto push ahead meeting that schedule in every way that wepossibly can.

I would like to point out to you another thing thatis very, very important here. In the process of putting thisprogram in motion, we have accumulated a basic ground networkof resources from assembly and large test areas like theMississippi test facility to large launching capacity at theCape, to connections between Huntsville, Michoud, Mississippiand the Cape and the manned spacecraft center at Houston.This is a capacity on which you could build in acceleras:eaprogram very readily. It is something that. world ta1e youia long time to accumulate if you didn't have it.

We have the basis in our on-ggoing program, includingthe network of facilities, to move verv rapidly 4 this shouldbe the national decision.

QUESTION: Sir, do you know anything new now aboutRussian landing techniques, and are they landing on dryland? If so, how?

WEBB: May I refer that to Dr. Dryden?He said "anything new" on the techniques.DRYDEN: I don't know of anything new. I suppose

that they are landing by parachute, as they have been doing,mainly.QUESTION: Mr. Webb, is there any feeling in NASA

that this shct was designed to overshadow the anniversary ofthe Berlin Wall, this particular timing?WEBB: We are not the department to make thosekinds of analyses. We have done the research in aerona'.ticshere for many years and are still doing it. We are doing the


25/27

4ht 25research in technology and development in space, ande havebecome operational as an agency for space flights. We arenot trying to assess the political. intentions of these othercountries.

QUESTION: Dr. Dryden, could you estimate what kindof a payload they could escape into a circumlunar trajectorywith the existing Vostok carrier?

SEAMANS: As you know, about 50 percent of what youput into earth orbit you can take into an escape mode. Givingthem the full benefit of, say 14,000 pounds, with one, ifthey can rendezvous them, which is questionable for thisparticular rission, they would then have 1.4,000 pounds in alunar trajectory, which is a very, very small weight for thisparticular mission.

WEBB: You mean they would have it in an earthorbit?

SEAMANS: If you took up two, If it were just one,they could take about 7,000 pounds on a trajectory to themoon.

QUESTION: Fourteen thousand pounds, including itsrocket motors to accelerate from earth orbit?

SEAMANS: If you start out with 14,000 pounds inearth orbit you will end up, if you have the right configura--tion and the right propulsion, including high-energypropellants, they might end up with 7,000 poundscm atrajectory to the moon.

QUESTION: I would like to ask Dr. Holmes, whatare some of the things you would ao if you had the Sovietbooster capacity at your disposal?

HOLMES: Before answering that directly, I wouldlike to point out -- and I don't mean to be sanguine atall -- but I think that we have known for sometime that theSoviets have had a booster that they have used over andover and it should be reliable by use, and it is, and itdid have a thrust much larger than anvthing we hav- had,I think the experiment or mission, whatever you want tocall it, as performed, every element of it is directlyrelated to just exactly that fact, from the timing of launch,reliability of the booster, from the size or capacity of the


26/27

5h t

object launched, the pyu. ~ of thre booster, fromthe reliability wbicn tht-i si iv,= had In their environ-mental systems to opiezri:fl )'er thal.: period of time, payloadcapacity again, size, nting cr-1.-mned, together.

So that I th0:in if w'i had the booster, now toanswer your question, in oth~Er words, 1 don't think it issurprising, I think it is an aiccomiplishment but it is some-thing we knew, they hacL all along. If we had that boosterI think we probably would be doing the kind of thing thatwe are heading for doin~g with Gemini earlier.

In other words, %-~air~ struggling in this country,as Mr. Webb has poin-,e~d o~it, arAJ Dr. Dryden and Dr. Seamans,for w~ore booster capacity. Arnd if we had that, capacity todaywe certain~ly woufld be dcing 7:ongt~ missiai flights ormaybe multi-manned flighrs, or things where you couldexperiment witL more wvcight in or'bit at an earlier date.

WEBB: U~ -ii~ niuybe some of you are geTting tiredof this. We can `,a*ke co*L'of ztoxe questions. Don'twant to cut it, off ilf yv,. ~%nnt :QUESTION: J ave .~. -ye ;-ological question, aboutpsycho).ogicai at-mosphtl;-. in~ lic NASA', i~n some sections of

NASA. The thing is tha-: se'-rv,, hono-rable -reporters fromCape Canaverai quz-ted soifir NASA repres-ervatives, and namedthem, as saying s rathet gloomy j-redictions. For example,a miracle needed to bcrtt Missiars in tre. -moon drive.Some= of yoi.1r j;,at~;rs pointc-d out about the dif--ficulties and the pes s~imistic mood of NkSA. Can you commenton this?WEBB: thicrh ~o1:. wouild h,.,ve to judge that. Weare here, thc- s.'nior uifici~~ils concerned with this, andwe have expro~-ssc:d our o'jiru'Jns_ t~o you' very freely in answer

to your questions;, Aiiy _-clper-sons from thep Cape are notauthori~zed to sp.r~k fo l tne Ager'cy, nor were they in fullpossession d all t fa1>cts t.hat we gent'-emen have.

1 think y..~ 'ai4: to ju;d'ge that on th e basis of theanswers we give to y-our quLest.Lons.I do not fe%7,1 prissimilctic, if you ask me personally.


27/27

6ht 27QUESTION: I understood your position, but still

the papers, for example, some morning papers -- and it iswidely publicized in the whole provincial press -- saidtout some sections of NASA.

DRYDEN: There are 22,000 people in NASA. If youcan't find one pessimist among them, there is somethingwrong.SEAKANS: I would like to say, I am not a bit

gloomy. We don't claim to be perfect prophets, but as othershave said, we anticipated that the Soviets would be carryingout additional flights. We have laid out an extremely goodprogram.

We have, we think, excellent resources withinNASA. We know we have excellent resources in our industrialcomplex. We know that our universities have a very strongscientific background. And this country is moving intospace.

WEBB: I think you could say one other thing. Therewere people here a year or two ago who were saying, what isthe use of doing anything because you will never catch theRussians. I would say that seldom in the history of anynation has as much been accomplished in a 12-month periodof time as this agency has accomplished in a very advancedarea of science, technology, operations, and courageous mento fly the vehicles.

QUESTION: Thank you very much, sir.(Thereupon, at 4:25 p.m., the conferencewas concluded.)

News Conference on Russian Space Shot

Documents

Transcript of News Conference on Russian Space Shot