EWTILENI@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Eric William Tilenius) (08/02/89)
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release July 20, 1989
PRESS BRIEFING BY ADMIRAL RICHARD H. TRULY
The Briefing Room, 11:25 A.M. EDT
MR. FITZWATER: Ladies and gentlemen, we have with us
this morning to brief you, the Administrator of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Admiral
Richard Truly. Admiral Truly will have a brief opening
statement and then take your questions.
ADMIRAL TRULY: Thank you and good morning.
Q: Got a sign-up list? (Laughter.)
TRULY: July 20, 1989 is a very important day because
it's 20 years after this nation first landed men on the
Moon, and the President and the Vice President were kind
enough to help NASA and the crew of Apollo 11 celebrate
that on the steps of the Air and Space Museum, just a few
moments ago. It -- 1989, I think finds NASA and our
space program in a healthy state. We are flying again.
As a matter of fact, we're going to be flying another
shuttle flight here within the next few weeks. Flight
readiness review is early next week and then we'll set
a launch date, which will be early in August.
We're fighting hard on -- up on Congress for
Space Station Freedom. And as I have looked across the
Agency, I think that I find NASA and the American civil
space program to be poised and ready to move out into the
future. And I believe that President Bush very clearly
this morning, and again, asserted that he believes that
America should have an aggressive space program, and that
we should both look back here to our own Planet Earth,
where there are many environmental problems and many, I
believe, that cannot be solved without a data collections
program that we've called a "Mission to Planet Earth" to
understand what's going on here on our Earth.
But he also directed that we also look ahead to
the future. He said that he had asked the Vice
President, as head of the National Space Council, to work
with NASA to present a specific plan as soon as we could;
to follow his broad direction, which was to have a long
and steady goal of human exploration, as we did earlier.
One that would be a long commitment, that would lead, in
his words I believe, to the potential return to the Moon
with a science outpost, possibly -- or go there to stay
in the first decade of the next century, and then
eventually later, a human exploration of Mars.
Q: Do you have a date on that?
TRULY: No, we don't.
Q: Any way of knowing?
TRULY: No, we don't, because we -- I just, frankly,
learned this morning what his direction was. He laid it
out in three steps. For the 1990's, he very clearly said
that Space Station Freedom is our first priority, which
it is today. And incidentally, the space station stands
on the route to any exploration direction. And then the
second step was a lunar -- a scientific outpost -- its
purpose not to go, just touch the Moon, and return, but
to do science there.
Q: Do you say that's the first decade of the next
century?
TRULY: That's what the President said, yes. The first
decade of the next century.
Q: Admiral Truly, don't you and the administration
already have a blueprint in place, deriving from the
report of the National Commission on Space in 1985? Why
does the National Space Council and this administration
need to go back and revisit this, when you already have
this blueprint for the Moon and Mars and beyond?
TRULY: Well, as a matter of fact, that's really not so.
We do have a number of studies in our hip pocket that
have been done by independent commissions. And each of
them are generally in the same -- have been in the same
direction, as you say. And that is to lay out an
exploration goal that would include the Moon and would
include Mars, particularly in the next century. The
space policy that was first -- in which it was first
stated, was early in 1988, however, where it said that
it was a national policy to expand our presence into the
solar system. But until this morning, we really have not
had a president who laid out in broad terms his view and
his series of goals so that the Space Council and NASA
can flesh them out.
Q: Admiral Truly, can you tell us how the sort of hard
realities of what are resources are, given the fight
you're having now over Space Station Freedom, how can you
give any credibility to this kind of a goal, when you are
up on the Hill now just trying to sustain the relatively
modest levels? You know, the Apollo Project produced a
doubling in the size of NASA after Kennedy announced it
in the budget. I don't see any indications that the
President has that in mind for his presidency, do you?
TRULY: Well, first of all, there's never a time that
we're not fighting for our budgets. We did it last year
and the year before, and we'll be doing it next year.
It is an irony that we are -- at the time that we find
this sort of leadership and vision for America's future -
- that at the same time this very day up on the Hill, we
are, in fact, fighting very hard for the very life of
Space Station Freedom, and other things in the civil
space program. But the Apollo program peaked at over
four percent of the federal budget. That was about what
it cost at the peak to go to Apollo. But there was --
as magnificent a goal as that was, there was something
about Apollo that allowed us to walk away from it and,
in fact, then the funding for the civil space program
plunged to less than one percent.
The program outlined today, we will -- it will
be more than it is today, naturally, but, frankly, the -
- as the President said in his speech, each time we have
explored, each time we have invested in our future, we
have always lived to thank that day. And he laid out not
a program to be done in this Congress this summer, even
though that's the -- the major start was Space Station
Freedom -- and not a two-year goal and not a 10-year
goal, but a sustained vision of the future. And I
applaud him.
Q: Admiral Truly, when President Kennedy called on the
nation to go to the moon, he warned that it would not be
easy and it would not be cheap. And he said that it
would require a commitment to considerable additional
funds and if there was no such commitment, the decision
should be made then and there. President Bush made no
comments about the specific nature of funding that would
be required, though there are some estimates that it
could cost $100 billion to establish a base on the Moon.
What are the ballpark figures, and why wasn't there a
call for continued national sacrifice from the President
today?
TRULY: Well, I -- as I listened to the speech, I thought
it was clear that he made a call, a very direct call to
the Congress about Space Station Freedom. I believe that
he clearly said that our nation, which has the strongest
economy in the world, is capable of a sacrifice to
explore and continue to explore along the lines that he
talked about. Surely, it is clear that we should not -
- and it was said, I think, very eloquently -- I think
by Mike Collins this morning -- surely, it is clear that
we shouldn't base the future exploration on poverty on
our own country. Surely, we should turn to our own
Earth. And we have major -- we do have major problems.
But we also are a country of free will. We have
a very large economy. And over a long period of time,
we may choose -- we have the free will to choose the
directions that we go. And I don't know what the budgets
will turn out to be, but I can assure you that they are
very affordable, I believe, in the total context and over
a long period of time, and secondly, they will be
considerably less than the Apollo peak.
Q: Well, is the $100 billion figure an accurate figure?
What do your own hip-pocket studies show?
TRULY: Well, I've read in the media an estimate that a
program such as this, a crash program -- which,
incidentally, he did not call for -- would cost about
$100 billion over a period of 10 years or so to return
to the Moon. We don't have any detailed NASA figures.
We have, obviously, in the last several weeks, have
looked in gross terms what it would cost, but there was
no specific timetable and I have not presented the
President with a specific and detailed list of budgetary
requirements.
Q: Admiral Truly, more and more, the space program is
being characterized as a matter of great scientific
interest and, in that context, somewhat of a luxury.
What about the national security implications of
expanding the space program, and in that context, where
do we stand vis a vis the Soviet space program?
TRULY: Well, that's two or three questions in one. I
think -- in reverse order, I think where we stand with
the Soviets is we have a very different program than
theirs -- and, incidentally, I'm a great admirer of the
Soviet's program in that they have had a great dedication
and tenacity to follow through in a consistent program.
However, I believe that no space program on Earth today
has the kind of technology and capability that our does.
Obviously, there are national security priorities
in space also, but that generally is not -- the civil
space program -- that's not the NASA business and it's
certainly not the goals of what Bush outlined today.
Q: Do you think that this is important enough that we
should raise taxes to pay for it?
TRULY: Well, that's an issue that should be left to the
President and to the entire -- and to a view of the
entire national economic scene. And I can assure you
that I'm not an expert in it. I can -- let me tell you,
though -- one of the reasons that I feel so strongly
about it and that I've given my life to working on it is
that we -- that no one's asked about today -- that makes
it very worthwhile is that is stands and has the leverage
for the very things the President stands for --
education, competitiveness, the things it can do for
America -- a boost to technology. We have study after
study that shows that the dollars that we spend on the
space program, which are spent not in space but on Earth,
pay us back seven or eight dollars to one over a period
of a decade or so. And you can say I'm wrong by a factor
of two; it's still quite an investment in the future.
And so a program like this excites me because it
will position our country as we enter the next 1,000
years in a very -- a much better competitive posture.
Q: Well, would you like to see the President go to the
American people and say, we can't afford it with the
budget we have and I'd like to ask you to pay more in
taxes so we can afford it?
TRULY: I can't imagine for me to be happier for the
President to go to the American people and say what he
said the morning.
Q: He basically said we don't have the money for it, so
I'm not going to ask for it now.
TRULY: No, I believe he told the Vice President and the
Space Council to lay out a specific plan along these
broad goals, and we'll do that.
Q: Has he given and deadline to Vice President Quayle
for making a report? And you mentioned the other day
that if the President today gave a commitment to some
future program like the Moon or Mars, that NASA as it's
structured today wouldn't be able to do it. What will
it take to rebuild NASA to carry out a program like this?
TRULY: First of all, to my knowledge, he has not set a
specific date. Frankly, it's a very hard analysis that
needs to be done in order to lay it out. And you're
right, I did say that the other day. Today's NASA, even
though we have the underpinnings and the strength to
build, to be able to do such a program, we can't do it
today. We have faced a string of years in which our
budgets have been tight. We have a full plate today with
flying our space shuttle missions and building Space
Station Freedom. And to take on a project like this,
I've made -- or tried to make clear that we will need
some help. We'll need additional engineers and
scientists and techs to do the program. We have some
facilities problems that will need to be corrected.
However, on the other hand, let me not leave you
with the wrong impression.. In the last several weeks
when I have looked at NASA, even though we do have these
problems, I have found, frankly, that NASA has been doing
the right things. For example, if any president laid out
a view of the future like President Bush did this morning
and we didn't have a vehicle like the space shuttle, we
would have to invent one. If we didn't have a station
like Space Station Freedom, we would have to invent one.
If we didn't have the kind of facilities and launch pads
based on Apollo that we have, we would have to do that.
And we have those things, so I think we're poised and in
good shape.
Q: Admiral Truly, one of the things in all this talk
about how Kennedy inspired the nation in 1961 -- that was
only three years after Sputnik and not long after Gagarin
-- and there was a great deal of fear about the Soviets
gaining a superiority in space. Now with the new
political relationship with the Soviets, do you think
this is hurting your cause? Do you think a good Soviet
communist scare might get you more money? (Laughter.)
TRULY: No, it might help us in the short term, but I
think it would be awful. I love what I see going on in
the world today when we -- compared to 1961. And
frankly, I believe, at least for this short period of
time, and I hope it's a long time, the nations of the
Earth, and particularly the Soviet Union and the United
States, are living more equitably together. I'm
interested to see what reaction internationally from this
will be. I hope it's positive; I think it will be and
I'll bet it will be from them as well.
Q: Why did you say that we could walk away from Apollo
at some point and that we did walk away? Was it because
we became so blase?
TRULY: Well, I've thought a lot about that. My theory
is -- the Richard H. Truly theory -- is that it was
caused by two things. One is the goal that President
Kennedy set, which was a magnificent goal, but the goal
was to send man to the Moon in the decade and bring him
safely -- and return him safely to the Earth. And when
Neil and Buzz and Mike returned safely to the Earth, even
though there were a number of missions to follow them,
there was -- I think there was a collective "whew, we did
it" and we were so proud, and the goal had been achieved.
The second thing was the Vietnam War -- 1969, if
you remember -- and I know you have studied more than me
-- the Apollo landing on the Moon was one of the few
great things that happened in 1969. And the things that
were going on with the war and a number of areas,
combined with the achievement of Apollo, allowed us, for
whatever reason, to turn away.
I don't think that's what the future in the civil
space program ought to be. I think we ought to have a
long-range goal, not one that on a certain year at a
certain date we're done with it. I think there's so much
value to our American life from the space program that
having a goal that is sustainable is one worth waiting
for. And, by golly, we have waited 20 years for the
opportunity to really set such a goal and I'm glad we -
-
MR. FITZWATER: Let's take a couple of final questions.
Q: Admiral, the way I figure it, you want to get back
to the Moon in about 20 years or so. And if you've got
to do that, you're going to need a plan and you're going
to need some specifics rather sooner than that. I just
wondered what the timetable is to come up with a specific
plan, its cost, the way its to be financed, as well as -
- and a timetable. At what point in the Bush presidency
would you like to see this?
TRULY: Oh, I think that -- as a matter of fact, somebody
just yesterday said they were worried about what they
President was going to say on Thursday, and I said, don't
worry about what the President's going to say on
Thursday, you'd better worry about what you're going to
be doing on Friday.
We have lots of work to do. I think it's going
to take a number of months for us in NASA just to lay out
how this affects what we're going and what our plans are.
The President -- I think his words, for getting
back to him, were as soon as possible. As I said
earlier, I'm not aware of a specific deadline, but we
have our work cut out for us. But I do look forward to
it. But we've got a lot to do.
Q: Could you tell us as simply as possible what man will
be able to do on Mars in the second decade of the 21st
century -- robotics -- something we can do?
TRULY: We certainly would precede a manned mission to
Mars with robotic precursors. As a matter of fact, we
have -- one of those first precursors is already on the
books, and it's going to be launched in 1992 -- called
Mars Observer. We'll probably need to send higher
fidelity imaging systems and very possibly a robotic
sample return mission -- in other words, bring back a
little piece of Martian soil to -- but Mars has intrigued
the people of this world for hundreds and hundreds and
hundreds of years. The first excitement about going to
Mars will simply be one of exploration. And that is to
send men and women there to go to the planet and gain
knowledge from it.
I think probably in the longer run that we will
have such a program on Mars as the President mentioned
today about the Moon. The Moon is much easier for us to
do and that is, a science outpost, not unlike our
outposts that are in Antarctica, which, as you know, are
international outposts, and in a way, several
international outposts add up to make an international
base.
Q: You say man is a symbol of the exploration, then,
rather than a necessity for science.
TRULY: This is a -- no, I didn't say man didn't do
science, but I did say that the driving urge, I think,
over the centuries to the Red Planet, the Planet Mars,
has been one of exploration. And it will lead later, as
in all explorations, to a later program of using the
planet for science and knowledge.
Q: When you were briefing the Congress with Vice
President Quayle, you outlined an option to the Moon by
around 2001 or 2002, and Mars by 2016. The President
today talked about just a space station in the 90's and
the Moon in the first decade. I mean, it seems like even
now, he's sort of taking a more leisurely path. Was
there a change?
TRULY: Well, the first decade of the next century starts
in the year 2000. The last year of the first decade is
the year 2010. The President is quite aware that the
information and studies we've been looking at over the
last several weeks has been done in a very short amount
of time. I think it would be, frankly, foolish and I
would never have recommended that he, based on our
knowledge of what it takes, to say on a specific date.
However, our early studies show that, if you ask
the question, when could we be back on the Moon, it would
be in the dawn of the next century.
Q: Admiral Truly, can we afford to go it alone? Won't
it take joint mission, including the Soviets, to
accomplish these goals?
TRULY: Yes, I think we can afford to go it alone,
although I think that's probably in the long run now
what's going to happen.
The world has changed since the 1960s in space.
It used to be only the Soviet Union and the United States
that could fly in space; that's the way it was when
President Kennedy made his speech. The world has
changed. The Europeans, the Japanese, the Canadians, the
Chinese, the Soviet Union -- all of these countries here
in this brief 20 years now have the capability to fly in
space.
Space Station Freedom is an international project.
It's premature in this particular direction to know where
we're heading, but I would think it would have an
international flavor.
Q: Sir, did you attend the Naval Academy?
TRULY: No, Ma'am, I didn't.
Q: Can you tell about your educational background?
TRULY: Yes. I went to Georgia Tech on a Navy ROTC
scholarship, and since that day until the first day of
this month, I've been on active duty in the Navy.
Q: Are there any Martians? (Laughter.)
TRULY: No.
Q: And will they brief? (Laughter.)
TRULY: One more, please.
Q: Admiral, your predecessor always said if Congress is
going to cut the money for Space Station Freedom, it
might as well be killed altogether. Are you willing to -
- if the money is cut for Space Station Freedom, are you
willing to cut back on the concept of a space station to
a smaller space station, perhaps?
TRULY: Well, we've asked for, I think this year's
requirement for the space station that we need in the
President's budget is a little over $2 billion -- $2.05
billion. If we got one dollar less, I guess I would -
- you know, there's -- certainly, I think we can build
that one.
We're being threatened very directly with a cut
as large as $400 million. There have been amendments
bouncing back and forth up on the Hill that would kill
the space station. So there is a point where we can't
build the space station that we have talked about before,
but I don't want to scale it back. We know the space
station we want to build. It's named "Freedom". We're
entering a preliminary design review. That's the space
station the country ought to build. Certainly, there is
a level in cuts that -- we wouldn't cancel it, but I
would have to direct my people to look at changes -- and
I've already done that.
But I've tried over and over again to make it
clear that I'm only doing it because I think it would be
lousy program management if I didn't take account of the
realities when I'm being threatened directly with a cut
of almost half-a-billion dollars early in the program.
And I think the President's strong support today that
that is the first thing to do, as we chart a new course,
was one that I hope helps me and you and NASA and the
civil space program on the Hill.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END 11:50 A.M. EDT
- ERIC -
Eric W. Tilenius | Princeton Planetary Soc. | ewtileni@pucc.BITNET
Quadrangle Club | 315 West College | ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU
33 Prospect Avenue | Princeton University | rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni
Princeton, NJ 08540 | Princeton, NJ 08544 | princeton!pucc!ewtileni
609-683-4411 | 516-424-2298 | DELPHI: TILENIUS