Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1965 - NASA's History Office

ASTRONAUTICS AND AERONAUTICS, 1965 11
value to society to increase public understanding of issues that were
usually decided by the Government alone and debated afterward.
(Clark, NYT, 1/11/65, 46)
January 11: Dr. Edward C. Welsh, Executive Secretary of the National
Aeronautics and Space Council, said before the New York Academy of
Sciences that “scientists should not set themselves up to judge the
overall value” of the national space program. Past advice from scien-
tists had not always been sound advice, he noted. “. . . Organized
science has not always been outstanding for its courage, its vision, or
its optimism regarding goals for human efforts. Elements of con-
servatism, parochialism, and even reactionary thinking do appear
among scientists just as they do among many other groups in our
society.”
Dr. Welsh was also critical of the practice of criticizing the space
program “by narrowly comparing” the dollars spent for space with
what those same dollars might accomplish “if devoted to other endeav-
ors, scientific or otherwise.” He said that often such dollars were not
transferable ; that space dollars might change the general climate to
one favoring broader aid to the whole spectrum of science; and that
since space expenditures sought broader goals than those of science,
“the comparison may well be invalid on the face of it.”
He continued : “The visionaries, whether primarily scientists or poli-
cy makers, must be given the opportunity to point out the many
benefits which can flow from the manned and unmanned uses of
aerospace. But, given such opportunity, they should use it effectively
and affirmatively. Regardless of their motivations, the pessimists who
cry out against aerospace research and technological endeavors have
clearly set themselves against progress. The United States can no
lnnger relax and rest on its past industrial laurels. The race for sur-
vival, literally and philosophically, is on. Of course, we would all like
to believe in the solely non-aggressive uses of aerospace by all coun-
tries which have the needed technology. However, the realities of life
dictate adequate preparation to preserve our national and Free World
security. We should follow the axiom that a pound of prevention is
worth mega-tons of cure.”
Howard Simons commented in the Washington Post that these re-
marks were probably precipitated by a report from a committee of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science which had
charged that social, economic, military, and political pressures were
distorting the traditional values and effectiveness of science. The re-
port was highly critical of Project Apollo: “The Apollo program, in its
present form, does not appear to be based on the orderly, systematic
extension of basic scientific investigation.” (Text, CR, 1/28/65,
A364-65; Simons, Wmh. Post, 1/12/65)
9 NASA announced that Launch Complex 16 at Cape Kennedy would be
modified to convert the former Titan missile facility into static test
stands for the Apollo manned lunar spacecraft. Construction bids
were expected to be opened by Army Corps of Engineers, late this
month. The modified test facility would replace an Apollo static test
stand originally planned for the NASA Kennedy Space Center’s Merritt
Island facility. Officials estimated that the modification of Complex