Doctors in Space; 12; Satellites and Missiles

This is National Educational Television. For some time now, a large part of our nation's scientific effort has been concentrated on two programs involving the use of rockets. One is the development of guided missiles, particularly the long-range ballistic missile. The other is Project Vanguard, the attempt to place a small unmanned satellite vehicle in space with instruments for astrophysical observation and research.

Both of these programs lead in the general direction of spaceflight in rocket-powered craft with human passengers, both make use of the same basic principles of rocket propulsion. Dr. Hubert Astrughoel from the School of Aviation Medicine at Randolph Air Force Base in Texas has been seen and heard regularly in our discussions. As the foremost authority on the medical effects of spaceflight, he is naturally familiar to with the scientific principles that underlie both rocket-building programs. Today Dr. Strughoel has with him a guest of great distinction. Major General Bernard A. Schriever is head of the ballistic missile division of the Air Research and Development Command of the Air Force. From Englewood, California, he directs the Air Force ballistic missile program, which holds our nation's top priority for weapons development. General Schriever, before we talk about spaceflight with human passengers, can you tell us something about the ballistic missile program?

I'd be glad to, Dr. Reiter. On these programs, we've had a good many informative discussions of rocket flight generally, but we've said very little about missiles. Will you tell us exactly what a ballistic missile is and how it differs from any other guided rocket vehicle? A ballistic missile is distinguished from other guided missiles by the fact that its flight is directly controlled by electronic devices only during the power phase immediately after takeoff. When the engine stops, guidance stops, and the point of impact becomes a fixed and unchangeable spot on the earth's surface. The missile, or more correctly, the nosecon of the missile, with its explosive charge, then follows a free flight path or trajectory to its target. And the greater part of its flight is in the remote upper atmosphere, where there's practically no air resistance to slow it down once the engines are cut off. That's correct, and that's why we use rockets to propel the missile. Because as you know, rockets do not need any air for combustion.

They carry their own oxidizer along with a fuel and operate best at very great heights. General Schriever, can you describe the ballistic missiles which the Air Force is building? Yes, there are two main types, Dr. Reiter. One is the IRBM, the Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile. It is a relatively short-range missile designed to travel 1,500 miles. The other is the ICBM, or Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. Its range is approximately 5,000 miles. Now, can you identify them by name? Our principal IRBM is the Thor. It is built by the Douglas Aircraft Company in Santa Monica. Our two Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles are the Atlas and the Titan. The Atlas is built by Conver and San Diego.

And the Titan by Glen El Martin Company in Denver, Colorado. Do these missiles differ very much among themselves? In size and in technical details, yes. However, generally speaking, all rocket vehicles of this type are the same in principle. For example, the rocket engines for both the IRBM Thor and the ICBM Atlas are made by the same company, North American Rocket Dime Division in Los Angeles. When we turn to the possibility of using long-range rockets for human transportation, I suppose the warhead of the missile will be replaced by a cabin for the passengers in crew. Well, there are several fundamental difficulties to overcome before human beings can be carried. In an Intercontinental Rocket vehicle, for example, the rocket engine consumes an enormous amount of fuel in order to overcome the Earth's gravitation and launch itself on a course towards its destination.

As a case in point, the German V2 rocket in World War II, it was 46 feet tall and weighed 14 tons, yet it had a range of only two to 300 miles. Nearly all the weight of this missile was rocket propellant, which burned at the rate of 9 tons per minute during the takeoff and climb under power. Now, the Atlas is larger than the V2 and proportionately heavier. Its combustion system is more efficient, yet by far the greatest part of its weight is still required simply for power to lift it off the ground and to build up the velocity needed so that it will coast to a point 5,000 miles away. That must leave very little room for the payload. Very little. In fact, the ratio of fuel weight to payload is so high that the Atlas would not even have been a practical weapon that had not been for one-fourth of a circumstance. Now, what was that, General?

The development of a thermonuclear device, of a practical size, weight, and yield. Hence, the size and weight of the missile can be kept within reasonable bounds. I see. You cannot build human beings into small packages, unless you find a race of highly civilized pygmies. So, getting back to your transport, if you want an intercontinental rocket craft with accrued and passengers, one that glides to earth and lands instead of disintegrating at its destination, you need a vehicle much bigger than the Atlas. Specifically, you need a multi-stage rocket, most of which will be jettisoned after the fuel is burned, leaving only the cabin, the compartment, the glider nose to coast on from a very high altitude to its destination. Is any such a passenger carrying rocket under consideration, General? I understand that several manufacturers have drawn preliminary designs for manned rockets of this kind. Such a craft is a logical outgrowth of the ICBM concept.

Dr. Strokehold, you are an expert on human flight in space. Want the fantastic speed and altitude of rocket transports make them pretty uncomfortable on the whole for the average passenger? Not necessarily Dr. Ryder. Speed itself has no appreciable effect upon the human body, until you approach the velocity of light. The only medical problems in that connection are the indirect effects of speed, that is changes in speed or acceleration, several dynamic heating and the light. We have gone into all of these questions on our earlier programs, and we found that the problems can be overcome. Indeed, most of them have already been overcome in the laboratory, if not in actual flight. Well, now we have been talking about a highly trained professional flyers, though, and now I'm wondering about an ordinary traveler like myself. I don't expect that he will experience major difficulties.

Most of the ride will be noiseless, wedeless, effortless, and swift, and intercontinental rocket transport would be essentially a space ship. Yes, it is the only kind of spaceship that the average citizen is likely to travel in for a good many years to come. Now, can you give us some idea of what a flight in such a spaceship would be like? It would take off vertically just as any other rocket normally does. Then, at an altitude well above most of the atmosphere, say at a height of at least 100 miles, it would level out and coast or glide with power off in a gentle arc toward its destination. The whole flight would have rather a dreamlike quality, emphasized by the fact that there would be no noise, no vibration, once the engine were cut off.

The most important difference between such rocket transport and an interplanetary spaceship is that it would land on the Earth again rather than on Mars or on Venus. But what about the terrific acceleration on takeoff? Wouldn't it place a tremendous strain on the passengers hard and other vital organs? The build-up is gradual. You have seen rocket taking off at bite-sand. They seem to hover just above the ground for a long moment of suspense as if deciding whether to take off at all. Then, they rise with increasing velocity and disappear into the sky in a few seconds. But the G-Force, the adequate from acceleration is not too great for the human body during the brief period of the climb to altitude. And the normal position of the passenger in a vertical takeoff is a reclining one on his back. In that position, the effect of swift acceleration is much less disturbing.

As the craft begins to level out at altitude, the position changes automatically so that the passenger finds himself sitting upright. But there is a reentry problem. Yes, there is. How to get the craft back down into the atmosphere from a speed of 10 to 15,000 miles an hour is one of the problems in rocket flight as we have seen on our earlier programs. You have that difficulty also with ballistic missiles. Do you not, General Schraver? Yes, we do. We approach it by various devices. One is a nose cone formed into a favorable shape that will reduce aerodynamic heating. But our only problem is to get the missile warhead down to the target intact. Destruction of the missile itself during its reentry into the atmosphere is not a major concern for us. In a rocket glider, Dr. Strooghol, you have to be much more considerate of the passengers than General Schraver has to be with his explosive warhead. Indeed, we do.

And that is one of the great differences between a rocket missile and a rocket transport. The transport has to be comfortable. If it is, if it plunges into the atmosphere and glides down directly to its port of arrival, the heat would become intolerable. In that case, how does it come down? Just as we saw on one of our earlier programs in the example of a glider returning from outer space, it circles around the Earth one or more times at the aerodynamic surface of the atmosphere, gradually descending in small dips and rises while it reduces speed. Rather like a plane circling around an airport, in a similar manner, yes. Well, so that on a trip from New York to Los Angeles, the rocket transport, conceivably, might not come down until it was on the second lap after a complete circuit of the globe.

That is quite possible. The longer the distance, the more suited it is to a rocket flight. For that reason, engineers consider any distance under 2500 miles in practical for a rocket craft. A flight from New York to Los Angeles or to San Francisco would be the absolute minimum. A rocket would be much better for a trip from Chicago to Cape Town or from London to Sydney, Australia. I should think that their use will be rather limited, so it will be. Most travelers will use jets as they are introduced on the airline, but there will always be enough people with interest that requires them to travel 5 or 10,000 miles in a hurry to justify the use of rocket craft. General Shriever, as an Air Force planner, do you see any military applications in the man-guided missile that Dr. Struebold is describing?

Oh, yes. Just as an all-fanned example, it might be an excellent way to carry airborne or space-borne combat teams behind an enemy's lines without fear of interception. How about a rocket bomber? Well, that's another possibility. We now have experimental rocket craft like the X-2 and the new X-15. If we can make them larger with much greater range, we should have a rocket bomber capable of delivering a nuclear weapon effectively. I have heard it said that guided missiles may eventually make the Air Force as we know it today obsolete, that we will need only a small technical force on the ground to operate the missiles by remote control electronically. You don't feel that the ICBM will supersede the bomber altogether. Oh, I don't. Certainly not. And for a number of reasons. In the first place, though we are counting on an inertial guidance system of wonderful accuracy, it cannot think for itself an emergency or change its objective at the target.

Yes, you have not yet designed a substitute for brains. Exactly. Moreover, the guided missile is a one-way craft. It brings back no information about the enemy forces or their defensive posture. It is designed to destroy itself on the target and missiles are expensive, even though in mass production they will become cheaper. A man rocket craft can launch its bomb or missile, then fly on to land safely several thousand miles away on a friendly strip. There it can be refueled, reloaded, and flown again. Now you seem to be arguing against your own missile program, General Triever. Well, not at all. For certain strategic missions, especially the destruction of large fixed installations at a great distance.

The ballistic missile is ideal. For most tactical purposes, or where the target may be small or movable, like an army or a fleet, the man rocket craft is preferable. A well-rounded air force needs a modern weapon system to meet every situation that may arise. At this moment, we concentrate on the ballistic missile because we cannot afford to let it for tensile enemy. Get ahead of us in this new technique of vast destruction. What about military uses of a satellite? A great deal has been written on their value as observation platforms, overlooking the entire earth, and as ideal launching sites for missiles. Do you feel that a military satellite is the ultimate weapon that it will control the world? Well, there we are getting into speculative matters, and I can only give you my personal opinion.

I don't believe that any one weapon by itself, no matter how powerful it is, can enforce peace on an uneasy world. But I'm convinced that a complete arsenal of powerful strategic weapons, of all kinds, will enable the air force to carry out its mission by maintaining a deterrent strength that no aggressor in its right mind would dare do challenge. Then a satellite could very well have some military uses. Yes, I believe it could. We are moving rapidly into an era when military operations to an increasing extent will be conducted above most of the earth's atmosphere, that is, in space. A few decades from now, our safety as a nation may depend upon our achieving space superiority as we now aim to achieve superiority in the air. Man satellites as strategic points in space will certainly contribute to that kind of power.

In what ways, specifically general? First of all, by securing many kinds of information that are not readily obtainable from low-flying aircraft or on the ground. For example, weather reconnaissance can be accomplished much more effectively from a station outside the atmosphere, where movements of large air masses and air currents, such as jet streams, will be visible. Data of this type will permit accurate long range weather forecasts, leading to more efficient aircraft and missile operations. From a satellite, we can secure a better understanding of the Earth's magnetic field and its effect on a variety of phenomena, including cosmic rays. With this knowledge, we can improve electronic communications, provide more accurate navigational instruments, and possibly develop new methods of propulsion. Refined data on the Earth's gravitational effect will give us better guidance for missiles.

Also, any type of information that we obtain from a satellite will have some bearing on military operations besides enriching our scientific knowledge. Then you don't think of a man's satellite primarily as a base from which to launch missiles are to observe the troop movements on the ground. No, not primarily. At this stage of our technical advancement, anyhow. In that connection, I would like to remind you that one of the great barriers to astronomical observations is the Earth's own atmosphere. For days at a time, the sky is obscured by impenetrable layers of clouds. Even on a clear day, disturbances in the air make the moments of steady vision, few and fleeting. Now from a satellite station in space, if we wish to observe the Earth, we have to penetrate the same atmosphere. The only difference is that we view it from the outer direction.

The minimum altitude for a permanent satellite is at least 600 miles, the distance from Chicago to Washington. Either a telescope or an electronic amplifying device will be needed to show features on the ground in any detail. With magnification, a certain amount of clarity is inevitable lost under the best fuel in conditions. Remember, too, that the closer a satellite is to the Earth, the faster it travels. At 600 miles altitude, its actual velocity is over 16,000 miles per hour and its equivalent ground speed is approximately 13,000 miles an hour. Following a target with any kind of instrument at 3.5 miles per second is not easy. An electronic tracking device of the high spare precision would be required both for observation and to guide a missile down to Earth.

Then you are not sold on the value of a satellite as a military base. Not in that sense, I agree with General Schriever that it will have other military uses. Now, aren't you doing just what I accused the general of a few minutes ago that is arguing against your own project? By no means, I believe with General Schriever in the necessity of a man's satellite for a scientific observation. The data obtainable on meteors, on cosmic radiation, on the solar system will more than justify the cost of establishing the satellite. And then, of course, a man's satellite is the only feasible point from which to take off on an expedition into interplanetary space. I have seen a model satellite station designed by Dr. Werner von Braun of the Army is redstone arsenal in Alabama.

It is an extremely lavish, even luxurious outpost for human beings in space. Through enough, Dr. von Braun's satellite design is a large wheel shaped like a pneumatic tire rotating saw that the occupants will enjoy an artificial effect of clarity. It is equipped with every conceiveral kind of apparatus including IBM machines to perform intricate calculations. Now, Kraft Eriecke of Conveyor would design the model rocket craft which we used earlier in this series has a more modest plan for a minimum satellite. It would consist of two polar sections assembled so that they resemble a pair of pipe organs joined together by a passage like a futuristic dumbbell. Rotating around a common center of mass, these twin habitation would provide the artificial effect of cavitation that simplifies many of the problems of life in space.

Also, they would vary in size according to the needs of the occupants. Where is Mr. Eric a satellite to be established? Just above the atmosphere at about 600 miles or even higher. In point of fact, Mr. Eriecke recommends two satellites for the transition to space travel. The first would be this minimum satellite near the Earth. The other would be a more elaborate base from 24,000 to 36,000 miles above the ground. An interplanetary expedition would take off from the larger satellite. Why 24 to 36,000 miles in particular? The question of perturbation has to be considered. You see every object in the universe exerts a certain gravitational influence on every other object.

In most cases, because objects are either very small or very remote, their influence is so slight as to be negligible. However, in the case of an Earth satellite, one must take into account not only the primary attraction of the Earth itself, but also the effect of the Sun, our neighboring planets, and especially the Moon. Because of these disturbing forces, the orbit of a permanent satellite has to be calculated with great care. And Mr. Eriecke has determined such an orbit. He has determined its approximate limits. The satellite from 7 to 10 Earth ready-eye away or at a distance of 28 to 40,000 miles from the center of the Earth would be subject to the least possible perturbation. It should remain in its orbit indefinitely and would serve as a refueling station and a take-off platform for space craft on their way to other planets.

It's too bad that we have no ready-made satellites except the Moon. If there were a dozen or so at convenient intervals as there are around Jupiter, taking off into space would be a great deal easier. Of course it would, Dr. Ryder, but not so much of a challenge to our ingenuity and perhaps not so well adapted to our needs. Think that we are going to find it a great deal more useful to put up satellites of our own design in orbits convenient to us than to look for ready-made platforms in space. In the same way we build landing fields for aircraft where we need them instead of hunting for a bit of level ground as we would have done just 40 years ago. I'm sure that's true, General Friedman. Meanwhile, let me thank you for taking the time to stop by our studio today and tell us something about the Air Force Ballistic Missile Program and the possible uses of a man's satellite. It has been a privilege and a pleasure to have you with us. And thank you, Dr. Strughol, for another illuminating commentary on the human aspect of space flight.

Our next program will be the last in this series. Dr. Strughol will have with him as a guest. The celebrated astronomer, Dr. Albert G. Wilson, from the Lowell Observatory Flagstaff, Arizona. They will discuss the evidence for and against the possibility of life on other planets. This is National Educational Television. Dr. Strughol, Dr. Albert G. Wilson, from the Lowell Observatory Flagstaff, Arizona.