Russian Science

The following tape recorded program is distributed by the National Association of Educational Broadcasters. The world heard the electrifying news of the Soviet moonshot on September 14, 1959. This recent feat, the latest chapter in the story which started just two years ago, when the American public for the first time were shocked by the realization that the Soviet Union had the capability of placing a satellite in orbit around the Earth. It was this memorable day, October 4, 1957, that made the world pause and reflect upon the scientific accomplishment of the Soviet Union.

It was also the day that sparked a widespread controversy over the Soviet Union's scientific potential. In response to the popular demand for more information on Soviet progress in science. The Westinghouse Broadcasting Company last spring turned to Radio Moscow with a request to provide a first-hand account of Soviet accomplishments in the fields of science and education and their plans for the future. Radio Moscow complied with our request. Its English-speaking announcer supplied WBZ Radio with exclusive tape interviews with leading Soviet scientists. WBZ Radio in turn went to leading scientists in America for comments and impressions, as to where Soviet science stands in comparison with United States. The net result of this is the program you are about to hear. Its aim is to reveal some of the accomplishments of Soviet science, its failures as well as successes, a scorecard which should make us pause and think about the future.

The future is today, for it is now that we are faced with a challenge of Soviet science, a challenge that must be met. This is Moscow. You are listening to Soviet Science, a Radio Moscow feature prepared for the Westinghouse Broadcasting Company of Boston. Soviet Science presents a panorama of advances in many fields. We begin with the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. The Soviet Academy of Sciences has about 150 permanent members and twice as many alternate members. Working through some 200 institutes, laboratories, observatories, museums and committees with a total staff of approximately 16,000 men and women, the Academy handles thousands of research problems yearly.

Last year, the number exceeded 5,000. The Academy has several branch departments in the Ural Mountains and other parts of the country. It also supervises the work of the local academies of science situated in 13 Soviet republics. Though, a general meeting of the membership has the last say in determining Academy policy, the body that directs all current work is the Presiding Committee with a President elected for a period of five years. At present, this is Alexander Nesmeyanov, the chemist. And here's President Nesmeyanov outlining the goals of Soviet science during the next seven years. Professor Nesmeyanov is saying that the new seven-year plan is intended to elevate industry, culture and living standards to unprecedented heights. It will bring the country quite close to communism.

The present level of Soviet science is such that it will be able to make a notable contribution to this goal. Our scientists will focus efforts on the problems that determine or directly influence labor efficiency. Automation will be greatly developed both theoretically and practically. We expect to make substantial progress in controlling thermonuclear reactions. We also look forward to great advances in experimental biology, which for one must explain the chemical and physical essence of metabolism, heredity, and other vital phenomenon. And without a doubt, Professor Nesmeyanov adds, the coming seven years will see man reaching and studying the moon and the closer planets. The Soviet Academy of Sciences represents the top echelon, the brain trust of Soviet science. In addition to the Academy of Sciences, there are other research institutions, 700 in all

in the field of science, where some 140,000 research scientists are employed. Having embraced such a large spectrum of activities, it is difficult to cover each and every detail. Therefore, we have turned to some selected fields. In the United States, it is the function of the National Science Foundation to furnish leadership, not to direct in the broad effort to promote science and to assess the situation and the need. It is a function that would have had little meaning 50 years ago and probably none a century ago. It is in the best position to give us an overall view of what goes on in the field of Soviet science. Therefore, we have turned to the director of the National Science Foundation, Dr. Alan Waterman, with this question. Science today is a highly diversified area of human activity. In view of this, how can we assess most meaningfully the strengths and weaknesses of the scientific effort, be it in the Soviet Union, or the United States?

In order to answer that question, one has to be first sure what is meant by scientific effort. If one's thinking about the technological side, namely the achievements, the practical achievements of a country, these are best exemplified by the kind of things they produce, such as refrigerators and cars and washing machines and all the hosts of things that go up to make the industry of the country. In that, we have fairly obvious criteria. We know, for example, just one example, the Russians have a very good jet plane. It is reliable and rugged and performs well. Well that means a degree of technological achievement, which is backed by their industry. We also know that we are ahead in agriculture, that our agriculture machinery is better than theirs. That I would call technological rather than scientific, and the distinction is important. In science, there is really no way to estimate the strength of the effort except for the results of the research scientists, and those come out in the form of papers, as you

know, in the scientific journals, the quality and originality of the findings of the research people of the country are the best index to scientific effort. Now in that, we can say pretty clearly that we are doing extremely well. Our output of research is of excellent quality, and in very few fields would this be superior, I think, in the USSR. At the same time, the Soviets are making a determined effort in the training of scientists. They are providing with great facilities, the kinds of things that they need. Their education is thorough, and they have very rewarding careers if they go into science. So the future promise in the Soviet republics is very high. Our point will be to continue to do well, and recognize that this is a competitive affair in science, and we really have to take urgent steps to get on with it. Shortly after the Soviet Sputnik blazed a path around the earth, President Eisenhower

appointed Dr. James Killian, President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as special assistant to the President on Science and Technology. Dr. Killian was appointed in November 1957, and third, and he served until the summer of 1959. A few weeks ago, we went to Dr. Killian at MIT. We asked him how the United States was doing in the fields of science and technology in the race with the Soviet Union. First, let me say that I don't believe that you can cast the technological progress or condition or status of the United States in terms of a race, and I intellectually reject the idea that this is a fair way of appraising our own position or our own efforts. Nevertheless, it's perfectly clear that we are in a competitive situation. It's perfectly clear that the Soviets have as one of their objectives of excelling the United States in great many fields, including science and engineering. Seems to me, however, that this is an impoverished ideal, that what our objective should

be would be to excel ourselves, to make sure that we are working at peak performance, that we are utilizing our full potential in what we do. So I reject the idea of a race. But nevertheless, let me make some comments about our relative standing. I think that Sputnik gave the impression that the United States had lost the technological race that the Russians had gained technological superiority over us. I think this impression was wrong. Sputnik represented an achievement in one specific field of technology, the development of large-sized boosters for rockets. The fact that the Russians had started this very early and had done a superb job, a super-engineering job here, did not necessarily mean that they had achieved technological superiority. One needs to look into tail at the whole range of scientific and engineering developments in the two countries.

And I think the more one looks, the more one will be convinced that the United States, in many fields of technology and pure science, is still outstandingly strong, and that we have every reason to feel confident, that if we are alert, that if we continue to work to remedy our weaknesses, that we can be sure of maintaining a position of outstanding accomplishment in this field. I think, however, that we must come back to the problem of attitudes and the part of the American people of the importance, which they attach to intellectual quality and intellectual performance, that basically we will be outstanding and we will be strong if the American people feel it important for us to be so. Perhaps no other area has the spotlight been focused more sharply on our space exploration program than in Washington. Recently, the Congressional Committee on Science and Astronautics wound up several months of intensive hearings, months spent in reviewing the United States Research and Space

Exploration Programs. It is this committee that has the hard facts dealing with our world posture in science and that of the Soviet Union. The chairman of the Science and Astronautics Committee is Congressman Overton Brooks of Louisiana. Our question to him, where do you think we stand in comparison with Russia in the fields of science and research? I have two feelings in reference to this matter. The first place, the United States is still the world leader in science. Second to hold that position in the future, the United States will have to make a bigger effort than it is made in the past. In certain specific areas, the Soviet Union has made real progress and may even be ahead. But overall, the United States' strength in science and accomplishments is still greater. What worries many of the witnesses before my committee is the great momentum of the Soviet programs.

The great momentum of the Soviet programs, the world already knows that momentum has carried the Soviet Union to another planet, thus opening up yet another page in the fast-moving story of science. But what are the other areas in the science spectrum? One of the two most interesting areas in which the United States is being challenged by the Soviet Union is the area of physical sciences. The other, that of the biological and medical fields. It is, however, the advances in physical sciences that paved the way for humans to blaze a trail into outer space. The Soviet Union's first artificial satellite of the earth blazed the beginning of this path. That was the voice of the world's first baby moon launched on October 4, 1957. Another two followed, both larger and with more equipment.

And the dog, Laika, on Sputnik 2, let the world know how soon man could begin flying in outer space. Then came January 2, 1959. The USSR today launched a rocket to the moon. First reports indicate that it has successfully entered on its trajectory. So this was Radio Moscow's first announcement that the Soviet Union had launched a space rocket. "...the rocket equipped with scientific instruments weighs about 3,239 pounds, excluding the weight of fuel. There will be more details in later broadcasts this evening. And now you can hear the signals coming in from the Soviet Union's rocket on its way to the moon." Indeed the Soviet Union's first moon rocket heralded one of the world's first probes into the secrets of outer space, including cosmic radiation, a science which plays a major role in man's plans to outer space.

Why is cosmic ray research so important for the Soviet Union and the United States? For that answer we turn to Professor Bruno Rossi, Physics Department Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Professor Rossi regarded as one of the world's foremost physicists, served as chairman of the International Congress on Cosmic Ray Research, held in Moscow in July of 1959. His book, High Energy Particles, is widely used as a text both in this country and the Soviet Union. "I wouldn't say that it is particularly important for Russia or for the United States. It is important for science in general, for basic science, because it's only through the study of cosmic rays that we can find out the character of interactions that energies far beyond those that can be produced on the Earth by our cyclotron and cyclotrons. Also, through the study of cosmic rays, we gain very important information on conditions that prevail in our own galaxies and perhaps in distant galaxies, so there is a very close

connection between cosmic ray studies and astronomical studies. The Russians appear to be putting a great deal of effort in cosmic ray research. In fact, the amount of work and the quality of the work that they are doing are quite comparable with those in this country, but I would say that the area in which Russian scientists actually excel is in the study of the connections between cosmic ray phenomena and cosmological problems." Radio Moscow. Is cosmic radiation dangerous for space flight? That's a question reporter Alexeyev put to Professor Sergei Vernov, physicist and alternate member of the Soviet Academy of Sciences. Here is the recording of the interview. I'm going to ask Professor Vernov what the rocket had revealed about cosmic rays. [audio in Russian] [audio in Russian] It has been discovered, Professor Vernov said, that a large number of electrons are whirling

around the earth at a distance of up to 30,000 miles. Equipment on the Soviet space rocket established that their energy is negligible, only 30 to 100,000 electron volts. And now, I'll ask the professor, whether these electrons are a danger to space flight. [audio in Russian] Since the energy of these electrons is fairly small, Professor Vernov said, they can be absorbed by comparatively small layers of matter. Consequently, there is a possibility of protecting space fliers from the interest effects of such radiation. And now, I'll ask the professor, the last question. What is the intensity of cosmic radiation at a great distance from the earth, and what dangers it presents for cosmic travelers?

[audio in Russian] The intensity of cosmic radiation is very small at great distances from the earth, Professor Vernov said. [inaudible], which he added, space fliers have no particular need to fear radiation disease. True, it should not be forgotten that explosive processes sometimes occur on the sun, although very rarely. At such times, the sun becomes the source of cosmic rays, and the entire solar system is full of very intensive radiation. It was just two years ago when the world stopped what it was doing, and focused its attention on the Soviet Union as the world's first Sputnik pierced the surly bonds of earth and streaked into orbit. It was then that the American public soberly reflected on this accomplishment, and also asked themselves whether they had been kept abreast of the Russian advances in science. Congressman Brooks.

I think the American people are much better informed about the Soviet advances than they were back there in 1957. But it also seems to me that all too soon our people become complacent and begin to take for granted some of these new marvels of the present age. I do not believe the people at large yet appreciate the urgency of the scientific race we're engaged in. My committee is very much concerned about this, and through a series of reports has called attention to various specific problems. One recent report, for example, discussed the first Soviet moon rocket, which a few misguided individuals have brushed off as an elaborate hoax on the part of the Soviets. The careful study by this committee, unfortunately, confirmed the overwhelming nature of the evidence that in this instance, the Soviet claims were based on solid accomplishments, not just propaganda.

The interests of my committee are not just to establish this event, but to discuss the implications for the welfare of the United States. An early rocket pointed toward the moon cannot by itself harm us in the least. But the skill and the resources which lie behind such an accomplishment give a measure of the capabilities of that technology to build weapons and to advance our overall power in the whole world. The United States program should be more than just a frightened response to Soviet accomplishments. Out scientific programs can stand on their own feet as necessary and in the public interest. The Soviet competition merely lands on added urgency in an added timeliness to our efforts. An added urgency and an added timeliness to our efforts. As to the Soviet Union, it has always displayed strength in a variety of fields of basic research in order to support its space program.

One of these fields is astronomy. With everyone talking today about outer space and space science, the question arises, is there such a thing as space science? For the answer, we turn to Dr. Fred Whipple, director of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory at Harvard University. Well, that is, of course, to an astronomer is somewhat of a red flag because we feel that we have been doing space science for as long as we have been doing astronomy, but I'm quite happy to define space science as that activity that carries the actual instruments out into space so that the observations are firsthand rather than secondhand. What are the Soviets doing in the field of space science? You are well aware of some of their more spectacular exploits of sending up large satellites. The fact is that after the first satellite, the instrumentation was really very high level

and they have produced scientific results of real caliber in these experiments. It's quite clear, of course, too, that these projects are military classified in the USSR and that the international objectives of public relations and propaganda are very heavy factors in how and when they send up these objects and what they send up so that they, I think, do not give us complete information scientifically of what they learn, but they have given us a great deal of information. My honest feeling is that we've benefited most by alerting our public and our people in Congress who control the destinies of this country to the fact that the USSR has extreme confidence.

Today, the Russians or better members of the Soviet Union are very active in astronomy. They always have been much interested in astronomy, but until recent years they've had almost no observational equipment, it's been almost entirely theoretical, but during the last decade they've made progress in the instrumentation and have developed some very fine astrophysicists. I would not place them ahead of us by any means yet, but I would say that their work is a very good quality and that they are putting a great deal of effort into it and making excellent progress. They are spending large sums in building large equipment for astronomical research. They seem to place a great deal of importance in the theoretical developments of this sort, or the, shall we say, the ivory tower type of astronomy as contrasted to its practical use, and if they would continue on at the rate they are making now, and we made no more

progress in building equipment and so forth, they would very quickly catch up with us and surpass us. After this spectacular moonshot in September, Dr. Whipple, the one question that is foremost in the minds of many is whether the Russians are as close to putting a man into space as they say they are. That's a very interesting question. I have been expecting all through this year that we would hear news that they had indeed sent a man up and returned him to earth safely. But of course, they give no advance information as to what they are going to do in the immediate future, and so if and when they do it, it will come as a distinct surprise, undoubtedly tempered by propaganda value. You are listening to Soviet Science, a Radio Moscow feature prepared for the Westinghouse

Broadcasting Company of Boston, and the Westinghouse Documentary Production, "The Challenge, Soviet Science." Transportation is our next subject. The Soviet Union stands first in the world for mileage of electrified railroad, and diesel vessels with submarine wings, now manufactured in the city of Gorky, develop a speed of 40 miles an hour. The TU-104, the world's first jet passenger plane, designed by Andrei Tupolev, appeared in the Soviet Union in 1956. Another passenger plane of Tupolev's, the four-engine turbo-propped TU-114, is the largest aircraft in the world carrying 220 passengers. It can cover some 6,000 miles in non-stop flight, which means an easy jump from Moscow to New York. We have heard much about the strategic superiority of American planes and bombers. We wish

to leave that subject aside and turn to the question of how the Russians are doing in designing planes in aircraft of today. Our answer is provided by Dr. Leon Trilling, Professor of Aeronautical Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Trilling has been a student of long-standing of Soviet education and science. He has made several trips to the Soviet Union in recent years and is most qualified to judge in matters pertaining to aeronautical sciences in the Soviet Union. A vital concern to the West is the state of Soviet research and development in aeronautical sciences. In order to develop a modern aircraft or missile, one needs competence in essentially four areas: aerodynamics, structures, propulsion and guidance and control. If we look at these four fields separately, in aerodynamics, the Russians have a long tradition of extremely distinguished theoretical work.

Nikolay Zhukovsky is one of the founders of the science of aerodynamics. He was active at the beginning of the century, well before the revolution, and his students have carried on the work after his death. There is evidence from Soviet publications as early as the 1940s that they were well aware of the problems of high-speed flight and had at that time made considerable progress towards solving them. In the field of applied mechanics and structures also, there is a whole distinguished tradition and the Russians have done some very excellent work. In the field of propulsion, the Russians have considerable native capability, particularly in the kinetics of combustion and they have borrowed from German scientists after 1945. In all three of these fields, they are doing as well as we are, possibly a little better

in one area, possibly not quite as well in another, but on the whole their effort is comparable to ours. If one is to summarize the state of the art, I should say that any flying device that we can design, they know enough how to design if they choose to do so. Dr. Trilling, would you comment on the amount of money the Soviets are pouring into the field of research and development?