[meteorite-list] NPA 10-12-1969 NASA Scientists, Engineers Argue Goals, Elbert King Quits

[MARK BOSTICK]

Paper: News Journal
City: Mansfield, Ohio
Date: Monday, October 12, 1969
Page: 2-D

NASA Scientists, Engineers Argue Goals

     (EDITOR'S NOTE - "Team effort" has been the hallmark of America's 
successful space program. But, there is a little-publicized, underlying 
conflict between the scientists and the engineers involved in the planning 
and the accomplishments. AP Aerospace Writer Paul Recer discusses the basis 
of the controversy and its possible effects on the future of America's space 
program.

By PAUL RECER

     SPACE CENTER, HOUSTON, Tex. (AP) - Hidden by the glory and 
back-slapping aftermath of the successful moon landing is a simmering 
dispute that is casting a shadow over this nation's space exploration 
program.
     Some observers believe the dispute may spill over into the halls of 
Congress and laboratories across the country.
     The argument revolves around the role of engineers vs. scientists in 
the space effort.  There appears to be no happy middle ground.
     "Engineers are a like little boys playing with their machines," says 
one scientists. "They don't care about a damn thing but that their machines 
work right. As long as they do, they don't care if we learn another thing or 
not."
     "The scientists want us to go to places on the moon today that we're 
not even sure we can go to safely." says an engineer, "and then brush us off 
when we try to explain the problems. That can't see past their test tubes 
and academic credits."
     Several National Aeronautics and Space Administration scientists 
believe that science has been forced into a back seat since the start of the 
space program and now what they call "the engineer-oriented" agency is 
reaping the bitter fruit of its neglect.
     Three prominent NASA scientists and a scientist-astronaut have resigned 
from the program is recent months.
     Dr. Wilmot Hess, chief scientists at the Manned Spacecraft Center; Dr. 
Elbert King, curator of the Lunar Receiving Laboratory, and Dr. Donald Wise, 
a geologist at NASA headquarters, resigned within a few weeks of each other. 
King and Wise returned to academic communities and Hess moved over to a 
better-paying job in the Environmental Science Services Administration.
     Curt Michael, a scientist-astronaut, also resigned, taking a full-time 
position at Rice University in Houston.
     King, Wise and Michael were all critical of what one of them called an 
"apathetic attitude" toward science by NASA.
     NASA management and engineers give the impression outwardly that the 
scientists are content with the efforts being made to gain new knowledge 
through space travel.
     Many scientists, however, appear to be unhappy and accuse NASA of 
dragging its feet in developing the scientific potential of space travel.
     Several scientists have said that if efforts aren't made to increase 
the science return, there'll be little support from the science community 
when the time comes for NASA to seek funds from Congress.
     Both scientists and engineers agree that future flights tot he moon can 
be justified only by the scientific return. From there, the views separate 
and there seems to be little communication between the engineers and 
scientists.
     "Our problem is how much science can you do on a given flight," says 
Christopher Kraft, director of flight operations and crack engineer. "We 
want to keep it within a realm of reasonableness and safety. We've come a 
long way in satisfying their (the scientists) desires."
     "They have not," says Dr. Persa Bell, director of the Lunar Receiving 
Laboratory and one of NASA's top scientists. "I think they thought they 
were. I would hope that some of the recent changes (the resignations) would 
make that clear. But I'm not sure it has."
     There are 13 scientists-astronauts in NASA, yet none was named to crews 
for Apollo’s 12, 13 and 14.
     "That was a very bad mistake," says Dr. Bell. "What we need now is to 
begin to get some scientific examination of the lunar surface, to get better 
selection of samples. You really need people on the spot who have experience 
in the proper field."
     "We just didn't see any good reason to do it." says Donald K. Slayton, 
the chief of flight crew operations. "I guess we figure that any time we put 
anyone on the crew there ought to be a good reason for doing it."
     Moon landings are too hazardous now for the limited flying skills of 
the scientists-astronauts, he says.
     Dr. King said there was an overriding need for scientist-astronauts on 
the next few moon flights.
     "I feel certainly that any scientist-astronaut who came from a physical 
sciences background would be much better prepared to make observations and 
interpret them during the time he's on the surface, than a pilot astronaut," 
said King.
     "A dead scientist-astronaut is not going to do anybody any good," says 
Slayton. "It sure as hell wouldn't make any sense t put a scientist on the 
next flight just to say we've got a scientist on board and then blow the 
whole thing trying to make a landing."
     Dr. Michael, the former scientist-astronaut, said a scientist could 
ride along the moon's surface aboard the lunar module since it is the 
commander who does all the piloting. All the scientist would need to know is 
how to abort the flight in time of trouble, he says.
     "Both guys have to be able to fly it." says Slayton. "You've always got 
to assume that some guy might get hurt on the lunar surface and the other 
guy is going to have to bring it home. It would sure be a crime to have one 
guy as a passenger and the commander break a leg and then you lose two guys 
instead of one plus the vehicle."
     "We most urgently need a geologist on the moon's surface now," says 
King.
     Bell says a geologist is needed to help train astronauts in future 
flights, to "tell them what to look for. We really don't know that now."
     "Can you find a geologist that can do any more for you than a pilot 
that's trained to the level that we've trained our pilots," asks Slayton.
     "They're good guys," says Bell of the pilot astronauts who try to do 
geology. "They try hard. But there is a fierce difference between those who 
are trained in the discipline and those who have picked up just a little 
smattering in some quick training."
     Nine Apollo moon flights are scheduled four to five months apart 
through 1972.
     Scientists Bell and King and many others would like the flights 
separated by at least six months and preferably nine-months. This would give 
them time to assess the data and plan future flights. Analysis of the rocks 
from Apollo 11 will not be completed, they note, before Apollo 12 in 
November.
     Kraft, however, points out that at nine months apart the balance of the 
Apollo program would take almost 10 years and would about double the cost.
     Bell said that the engineering-scientists conflict is at least five 
years old. He claims that even in the design of the Lunar Receiving 
Laboratory, the chief lunar science building, the scientists got inadequate 
office space facilities.
     Officials point out funds for the laboratory building were cut about $1 
million by Congress. This lopped off a whole floor of the building -a floor 
that had been designed for offices.
     Personnel for the Lunar Receiving Laboratory were also assembled during 
a time of economy moves. As a result the laboratory is short handed.
     Engineering departments, meanwhile, are crowded with talent.
     "The scientific part of this establishment is enormously overworked," 
says Bell, who talks explosively while peering from behind his thick 
glasses. "We've been working seven days a week, 12 hours a day a lot of the 
time during this mission (Apollo 11). Individuals can't continue that very 
long. It's too tough. We can't stand it."
     He said the laboratory has a need for 50 more scientists, at least, to 
handle the moon rocks brought from the moon in the way they should be 
processed.
     "The way it is now, we can't without increasing the number of people, 
even survive very many of these missions," he says. "We can manage one, we 
can manage two probably, but we're just about dead. Worn out. By the third 
mission we'll be in terribly bad shape. Just physically worn out."
     He said there's no prospect for help. Employment at NASA, he said, is 
frozen and he's not sure he could get the people even if he was permitted to 
hire them.
     Bell said much of the work with the rock samples following Apollo 11 
was done by outside people and "they had such a hard time that they're not 
anxious to do it again. We had very high level people this time. In order to 
get people to take their place (for Apollo 12) we'll have to take younger, 
less experienced people."
     And even those are hard to persuade.
     "We can't give them much facilities. We can't give them good offices. 
We can't give them much secretarial support," says Bell.
     "Any scientist who enters the agency has to realize he's entering a 
large management structure that is not especially sympathetic to scientific 
problems and objectives and he's going to have an uphill battle," King says.
     Both King and Bell said that NASA will have to have the help of 
scientists in pushing through requests for more funds in the coming years. 
And when the space agency reaches for help from the science community, it 
may get bitten instead of boosted.
     "If we approached Congress with a cogent scientific program that the 
scientific community can support, they certainly will support it," says 
King. "Unless we come up with answers that the scientific community can 
support in a fairly massive body, I doubt that we can get the funds. I've 
heard many prominent scientists express the same sort of concern."
     Developing the scientific program "is too feeble an effort at this 
point," said King.
     Kraft, however, notes that all missions to the moon from now on will be 
aimed solely at science except for one area: navigation. Some navigation 
engineering data will have to be gathered, he said, but this is necessary 
only because of the need to land on the moon at spots where scientists want 
to go.
     From the outward view expressed by NASA management and engineers, any 
conflict between the engineers and the scientists is a thing of the part. 
Most officials give the impression that the issue is overblown.
     "Scientists I've had any association with are happier than hell about 
the whole bloody (moon flight) business," says Slayton.
     Bell says the scientists are in fact unhappy.
     There has been a steady level of complaint for five years," he said, 
"Many people want to help, but they can't. Some of them are troubled by it. 
The complaint level will continue to rise."

(end)

Mark note: Dr. King did return to NASA along with Dr. Wise in short time, 
but King did not give up his college duties so I imagine his interaction 
descreased some.

Clear Skies,
Mark Bostick
Wichita, Kansas
www.meteoritearticles.com