(00:00:00) Twenty years ago this weekend. It was the weekend that the Apollo 11 blasted off on the first manned mission to the moon mission to put human beings on the moon. We're going to talk about what we learned from that Moon trip and where the u.s. Space program is now with dr. Robert Pepin physics professor at the University of Minnesota Robert. Welcome. Thanks for coming back. Why thank you. Glad to be back. Where were you 20 years ago during the Apollo 11 Mission (00:00:27) sitting in front of a television set you were yes indeed here in Brooklyn Center looking with a lot of anticipation at that stuff. They were walking around on because I knew I was shortly going to have a sample of that in my (00:00:41) laboratory. You are probably like most of us watching Walter Cronkite do the space coverage Walter Cronkite later collected some highlights of the Apollo 11 mission for a record. We're going to play a little segment of that for you (00:00:54) here for eight days and nights between liftoff and splash down in the Pacific. West of Hawaii the world held its Collective breath. Each of us has his own special set of memories for me. There were three The Descent at 4:05 p.m. July (00:01:11) 20th. I'm back, right? Okay engine stop it gay at is Ethan control both on the next command override off and then I'm a man on the moon. Geez, buddy base here. The eagle has landed rocket clink crank quality. We copy you on the ground. You got to fuck the guys about to turn blue. (00:01:46) Then the opening of The Hatch at 10:30 that night and the first walk on the moon 17 minutes (00:01:52) later. Okay. at the foot of the ladder depressed in the surface about one or two inches, although the surface appears to be very very fine grained as you get close to it it it's almost like a powder now meth is very fine. That's one small step for man. Daya bleep prevent the 154 on the morning of the 21st Eagles are sent from the Moon and rendezvous with Colombia. Columbia and then on The Far Side of the (00:03:10) Moon the trance Earth injection that (00:03:12) thrust them on the long Voyage (00:03:14) Home. We got be coming home. It's well stock (00:03:20) some highlights of the capsule Communications from Apollo 11 Neil Armstrong walking on the moon and some of the rest of it collected by Walter Cronkite in the record that I'm not sure if it's still available or not. But if you have in your collection, it's a lot of fun to listen to so it wasn't too long after that Robert Pepin that you got a chance to look at some of the stuff that came back on the mission. Is that (00:03:41) right about two or three months? We were someone to Houston from all over the world. I think there are probably about 400 scientists who were involved in the analysis of the first samples probably from 80 or 90 research groups all over the world and we all came to Houston when the samples have been processed through the lunar receiving laboratory and the crew had gone through quarantine to make sure that we weren't about to let any Rochas bugs loose on Earth. Yeah, and that was that was a heady time in Houston. We all milled around and guessed what the samples would contain and how big hours were going to be and where were they Would come from (00:04:19) you found that the moon was not made of blue cheese. I'm sure what was it made of green cheese green cheese. (00:04:26) It was made of materials very much like the Earth that was recognized very early in the analyses that that the lunar rocks had put some differences in terrestrial rocks, but the most striking thing was how similar in basic chemical content the the very primitive lunar rocks were and that started a stream of thought about the relationship between the Moon and the Earth which has now culminated in a theory that makes it very clear that the Moon and the Earth were essentially at one point the same material and that the moon was essentially born from the earth. We now think because of a giant impact that happened very early in their Earth's history something the size of Mars collided with the Earth and tore loose great hunks of the terrestrial material through an into orbit and that eventually condense to form the Moon. So dramatic and catastrophic Theory but so far it's passed every test that we've been able to throw at it. And the interesting thing about that is that we could never have formulated such a theory if we didn't have the information from the moon rocks. Oh so their chemistry provided the ground Truth for some Advanced and I think probably largely correct ideas about how the moon originated. (00:05:39) Well, what do you suppose happened to the Mars like (00:05:43) product or it's now part of us. I was totally disintegrated and it's on now thoroughly mixed with Earth material and partially with moon material as (00:05:50) well. If the if the moon is made up of the same composition as the Earth, why is the earth able to support Abundant Life and intelligent life and the moon apparently no life at all. (00:06:02) The reason really has to do with what happened to the very volatile elements of water and carbon dioxide and the building blocks of life during that event that formed the moon things were very hot thousands tens of thousands of degrees. The mood also is a very small object. And so the volatile materials upon we which we depend for our atmosphere and and for our our carbon compounds and the other basic stuff of life. We're all lost very early stage from the Moon one of the interesting things about the lunar rocks that was recognized right away is that there is no water in them. And there never has been any water on the moon. It's a completely dry place. Now, there may be some water locked up as perhaps some permafrost at the poles of the Moon. We don't know but essentially the Moon is devoid of water and without water no life. (00:06:55) Dr. Robert Pepin is with us today talking about the Apollo moon landing the mission for which began 20 years ago this weekend and beyond that the space program today the manned as well as the unmanned space program that the United States is engaged in and the other countries in the world are engaged in for that matter to dr. Pepin has been and still is a consultant to NASA on a variety. Things you have a question for him. The phone number in the Twin Cities area is 2276 thousand 2276 thousand for any space related question. In other parts of Minnesota. The toll-free number is 1-800-695-1418 9700 and those of you listening outside the state of Minnesota can call us directly at area code 612 2276 thousand did we learn a lot scientifically about about the formation of the Earth from those Moon samples that we got from Apollo 11. (00:07:52) I really think that that's the driving Point behind the whole Space Program. We are explorers. We have a spirit of Adventure and we always have had but are also essentially Earth oriented. We're geocentric people this this is our home and one of the fundamental rationales for the space program is to try to learn about our own history and perhaps about our own future now in the many generations that people had spent Studying the Earth prior to the Space Program prior to the trip to the moon. We had some fairly good ideas about how the Earth originated and what would happen to it in the future. The problem is that you can never be sure such theories unless you see how nature works with more than one example, and we were essentially stuck with just the example of the earth to study. Once we got to the other planets to the Moon to a certain extent to Mars and to Venus we were able to see how natural processes operate it in slightly different environments and what kind of different end results they could produce and if you now have an overall theory that can explain the origin of all of these planets, then you have some great confidence. That is probably correct. And that's exactly what happened. The the beginning of it was with the moon where our question was. What was the early history of the earth like and how did the moon come into existence we may very well have answered that question the subsequent trips to Mars and Venus by us and by the Soviets have given us a much wider perspective. Now a good example for example is the greenhouse effect, which is very much in the public mind now and quite properly so Venus is an example of a greenhouse effect gone absolutely berserk. Hmm the the carbon dioxide that just about the same amount that we have here on Earth. Venus is all in the atmosphere. The result is that the surface temperature of Venus is something like 900 Degrees. There's absolutely no water on the planet and thus the sun's radiation is so effectively trapped in that atmosphere that the surface temperature has just skyrocketed. If all of the carbon dioxide that we have here on Earth not just in plants and in trees and in fossil fuels but the carbon dioxide that's locked up in Limestone where most of our carbon dioxide actually is. We're to go into the atmosphere. We would have exactly the same situation here as on Venus and what saves us is the presence of water. We didn't really fully appreciate that until we had we had studied what had happened on Venus. It's an interesting point that if the moon really was formed by a giant impact with the Earth that same impact might have removed an atmosphere from the earth. That was very much like being asses at that stage and had that adverse impact not occurred. We might be living so I doubt that we would be Under venusian conditions right now (00:10:42) play talk about the what if questions of History. That's a monster. Here's a listener with a question. Where are you calling from, please? Hello, where you calling from? I'm calling from Duluth. Yeah, (00:10:52) yeah, I was wondering a know I learned recently that the moon has in it in the materials brought back from the Moon. There was absolutely no volatile. No water. Now. I've heard a recent theory that that it's possible that in some shadows and craters and things like that. There might be ice or something similar to that. I read that in the Omni magazine and I was wondering I was wondering if you know anything (00:11:22) about yeah that's been a subject of discussion for ever since we first went to the moon and discover that at least at the sites that we visited there was no water whatsoever. There are some reasons for thinking that possibly there is a little water of them on the moon somewhere and might have been able to retain a little bit of it from its early history. And also the Moon is continually bombarded by element streaming out from the Sun in which there is both hydrogen and oxygen and so it's possible that some of this could Combine is water and if it were in a protected environment on the moon so that it wasn't heated rather hot and got into the atmosphere and then escaped gravitationally from the planet. It might still be there. The only feasible place for this water to exist is probably at the poles of the Moon which are relatively cool. And unfortunately, none of the Apollo missions got anywhere close to the pole. It was too difficult to reach from a trajectory point of view. But within the next two or three years, hopefully, we'll be launching something called the lunar geoscience orbiter which will be going into Polar orbit around the moon and we'll fly over the poles with great frequency. It has on it instruments that should be capable of detecting small ice or probably ice deposits even under a layer of dust at the poles of the moon. So will surely answer that question, but it it's a good one. It is by no means certain that there is no water on the moon all we know for sure is that there's no water on the moon near the equator. (00:12:44) Is there any particular reason for human beings to go back to the Moon is Anything that could further be learned by man toddling around up there. (00:12:53) Oh, we've just scratched the surface really. In fact, literally, that's what we've done. One of the things we need to look at is the relatively deep interior of the Moon either by seismic instruments to look at the Moon Quakes or actually drilling into the lunar surface to see what's below that chopped up layer of dust and debris and dirt that covers the entire surface. So it literally we have just scratched the surface. There are many other reasons of my own particular reason has to do with the origin and and history of the moon but it is in fact a marvelous platform for astronomy, one of the problems that radio astronomers and even Optical astronomers are having now on Earth is that we have lots of contamination light contamination radio contaminations getting a little hard to see out from this electromagnetic clutter that we've surrounded the Earth with a telescope or radio or optical telescope on The Far Side of the Moon completely shielded from the earth and from any Earth radio emissions would advance Astronomy enormously, that's one of the exciting prospects about the the science that could be done from a lunar base. There are many other reasons. I think that is important simply from the point of view of our capabilities to explore space to demonstrate possibly by a permanently manned lunar base that we can in fact survive and function will in a non terrestrial environment. And finally there's a resource question. We would certainly never mind water from the moon for shipping back to the Earth because there's probably very little and besides we don't need it but there are some elements that are on the moon which are in extremely short supply here on Earth. The most spectacular example is a very rare kind of helium called helium-3, which you might think is simply a curiosity, but in fact it is by far the most effective raw material for nuclear fusion. There's very little that on Earth not enough to support anything more than a pilot plant for nuclear fusion reactions, but the Moon is Loaded with it. The reason is that this this element is very common in the particles streaming out from the Sun as part of the solar wind and those particles are deflected around the Earth by the Earth's magnetic field, but they hit the moon squarely and they bury themselves in this chopped up layer of debris on the lunar surface and those elements including this rare isotope of helium are still there for the mining and that actually might be economically feasible in 20 or 30 or 50 years if we get Fusion going in anything, but a test tube on top of a lecture bench that is (00:15:22) five minutes past eleven. Dr. Robert Pepin the physicist from the University of Minnesota is with us as we talk about the u.s. Space Program 20 years after the Apollo 11 Mission. The phone lines are open in the Twin Cities. If you have a question about space Here's your opportunity to talk to a man who's done a lot of work in the field to 276 thousand Minneapolis st. Paul area callers 227 6001 865 29700 Is the number for those of you outside Minneapolis st. Paul? And for those of you in the surrounding states you can call us directly at area code is 612 2276 thousand the entire moon landing program was such a clearly defined goal for the United States. Everybody was excited about it. The Congress was behind at the public was behind as matter of fact, it was kind of a unifying force back in those days of the Vietnam War and so on but it has our has our have our space goals become a lot less focused since then we sure don't have anything like the Apollo program today. (00:16:26) I think you used exactly the right word Bob. We had our foot will in the door in Apollo. And in fact, as you pointed out Apollo was a very intensive time. There were six missions 7 actually to the Moon within a period of three years the difficulty was that that NASA had really not planned for the continuation of space exploration in either this or or say entirely in a robotic mode for sending missions to Venus or Mars or Jupiter. They had not planned very well during the Apollo years to carry on a continuing program and after Apollo NASA essentially looked for another spectacular that would perhaps rival Apollo in terms of commanding public interest and and and and ensuring rather routine access to space that was the shuttle program and after the shuttle program. It was the it was the space station, which is now before us and none of these had very clearly defined. Scientific goals Apollo Apollo did with Paolo was unusual though. I must admit that it was not science that took us to the moon for Apollo. It was a combination of a political commitment and National will to do something that had not been done and competition at Soviet and competition with the Soviets right which we still have and in fact, I would say that if one looks at it over the time period of the last 10 or 15 years we are now behind in that competition. However, it's quite different from the from the 1960s in the sense that it is now quite a friendly competition the degree of correlation between the space programs of the to Nation certainly on a scientist to scientist level is remarkably different than it was 20 years ago. Nevertheless. There has been a failure of long-range planning and the scientific aspects as well as the expiration aspects of the Space Program have suffered from this now the Challenger disaster, I think in a sense refocused the agency's goals on as far as their Perception of what it exactly was they were trying to do the it's clear that the unmanned Science Program went up in smoke along with Challenger because we relied entirely on the shuttle as a launch platform for all our unmanned Dave's deep space probes that decision was made in the early 70s just after Apollo and it was decided that our only access to space would be via the shuttle we gave up at that time the unmanned rockets that had launched many of ours are deep space probes prior to that time. Now, they're coming back that mistake is now been recognized and is being rectified. I really am quite optimistic about the future of the program. The NASA is an older agency. Now a certain amount of bureaucratic ossification has set in but there are some very good younger people who are ascending the management letter within the agency people who are dedicated to science people who as far as I'm concerned have the right instincts and I look, Word to a rather interesting 20 or 30 years with now, so there are course financial problems, but there is also the will to work around them, and I think I genuine interest in the scientific aspects of NASA's Mission. (00:19:42) Okay. Let's get some folks on the air with questions here about the Space Program. Dr. Robert. Pepin is with us you're calling from where (00:19:49) please from (00:19:53) Okay, what's your question? (00:19:55) I have to I missed the first part of the program you might have already answered this one. There are several theories as to how the moon formed which one's definitely are no longer accredited. And I mean which ones have they definitely disproved is honey on the other question has to do with putting up a model city or a type of city on the moon in the future. I believe last summer there was a group of international scientists putting together plans to put together a actual lunar City and if this is in the future or just something that's way on the back burner. Thank you. (00:20:36) I'm so glad you asked me both those questions. I've been I've been trying to steer the conversation in both of those directions since we started I did discuss a little bit of earlier in the program about current theories of lunar formation. The question you asked though. It was put in an interesting way as in that is what thing. That we have when we went to the moon that we can now rule out. Well, we essentially had two or three before we ever went there one that was quite popular was that the moon was formed elsewhere in the solar system not near the Earth at all and not out of the same material and happened to wander past just the right time and with just the right speed. So the Earth captured it gravitationally and suddenly we had a moon the chances by the way of that happening are roughly equivalent to the chances of your using a slingshot to put a BB inside a flowerpot that's balanced in the top of the IDS Tower. The the your little BB will have to will have to have exactly the right trajectory at exactly the right time in order to fall into that flower pot very difficult to do on the other hand very very improbable things do happen in life. And so we couldn't rule that out until we took a look at the lunar rocks and we it was very clear that the similarity between lunar rocks and terrestrial rocks. And that the Earth and the moon really had form from largely the same batch of stuff and that the moon probably almost certainly could not have formed way elsewhere in the solar system say at a place where the meteorites had formed because they are so different from the earth, whereas the moon was so chemically similar then there were other theories that hadn't been been treated terribly. Seriously the ejection of the Moon due to a giant impact strike in the Pacific Ocean and the and the whole that that impact left is now the Pacific Ocean Basin now that as stated is not a viable Theory the interesting point though, is that the current theory for forming the Moon that is as a result of material sprayed off by a giant impact on Earth much earlier than the Pacific Ocean Basin formed is in fact the current preferred Theory and so there was just a little germ of a correct idea in that Pacific Ocean. I thought which nobody paid very much attention to so we were able to Allowed two or three ideas that we had about the origin of the moon when we got our first or second or third. Look at the lunar samples. Now, the second question you asked was about a moon base and a lunar City. That's a very serious proposition right. Now. The agency is struggling with what to do about the report that Sally Ride issued a couple of years ago on long-range goals for the agency to of the things that that report recommended that we pay serious attention to are the possibility of creating a permanently manned lunar base or sending a piloted expedition to the planet Mars. Now NASA has not formally committed to either of these both possibilities are being studied. If you like my guess, I would say that from for both medical and financial and Engineering reasons a piloted expedition to Mars is several decades away and will probably be done in conjunction with other nations when it is done because as a Extremely expensive proposition the moon on the other hand is close. We've been there. We have the launch capability to reach the the moon with a fairly with a fairly profound payload. So I think that what will happen. Is that over the next decade or so, we will seriously consider establishing a manned lunar base for a variety of reasons that we were talking about before further scientific study of the Moon astronomy Optical and radio astronomy from the Moon the exploring the resources that the moon might offer to the Earth. It's close. The communication lag is not too bad. It's not terribly difficult to reach and we understand the environment much more so than we do the environment of Mars. Now, there's been lots of plans for what a lunar City might look like there are two or three things about it that you can take as given even before it's really planned one is that much of the city is going to have to be underground among other things. It's necessary to Shield the inhabitant from solar flare. Which are no problem for us on earth, except they interrupt radio communication because the dangerous particles are screened out by their respective field and by the Earth's atmosphere not so on the moon the the moon surface is totally open to a mission from the Sun and some of it in a major solar flare event is very very dangerous. The radiation levels can get very high. So we know that at least a major part of the living structures will be Underground. A critical question is whether there actually is water on the moon that we can tap or find water would make a lunar base much more simple because it would provide the one essential resource that we must have in order to maintain human life on the Moon and if there's no way to either find or make water on the moon, it'll have to be shipped from (00:25:39) Earth. We can have you'd have to ship up oxygen 2 inches isn't that kind of a (00:25:42) problem? There's lots of oxygen fact there's lots of hydrogen on the Moon and what will probably happen. Is that while the oxygen hydrogen don't buy a large exist as water. They're both there. My guess is that one of the first things that will happen is the construction of a pilot processing plant to Simply extract hydrogen and oxygen from lunar material. Make your own water. Okay, (00:26:04) let's move on to our next questioner for dr. Robert Pepin. Hello. (00:26:08) Hello. I'm calling from Minnetonka. My question. Is this about 10 or 15 years ago. We began hearing about a lot of government and privately funded programs to Big electronic ears into towards outer space listening for signs of intelligent life out there. And now a number of years have gone by and I'm wondering if those projects are still in place and if we've learned anything at all from (00:26:35) them. You guys are still in place. In fact compared with the level of Technology 10 or 15 years ago there now much more sensitive than much more comprehensive. They're able to look at very large segments of the sky and very very many different frequency channels all at the same time and I'm trying to remember I believe Harvard University is at in some way connected with a new search program on what is called the seti program the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. So this is still a live program. It's rather well funded by a variety of funding sources. It is intellectually and philosophically very very exciting the results so far have been totally nil. Now there is a parallel program that I would like to mention we discussed earlier in the program the difficulty of deciding exactly how the Earth formed and what direction it was likely to go in the in the in the future as long as we only had one example of a planet to study and what the space program has done for. This is opened up a other examples of planetary formation and evolution Mars and Venus Etc. One could say exactly the same thing about the entire solar system. How did it form as a unit not just one planet but the system itself are the circumstances that led to its formation common or very rare now that's a profound intellectual and philosophical question because it relates directly to the possibility of the existence of intelligence elsewhere in the Galaxy presumably intelligence at least as we know it would not exist without an appropriate planet to have nurtured it. And so the question comes down to whether or not planetary systems like ours are common in the in the in the Galaxy or whether were the result of a series of rare cosmological accidents. We are now at the threshold of having the technical capability to actually search for and find planetary systems around other stars using very sensitive astronomical instruments, and that program is just beginning now to get Our way and I suspect in the next 10 or 15 years. We may very well know at least the rudiments of the answer about whether or not solar systems like ours are very rare are they accidents of nature or are they so common that we could reasonably expect to have intelligent life elsewhere and the only reason that we haven't encountered it yet is simply because of the enormous distances involved and possibly the thought that other solar systems have problems the way we do and we must pay some attention to the home front before we go exploring to deeply (00:29:09) 25 minutes before twelve o'clock as we continue talking about the u.s. Space program with dr. Robert Pepin a physicist from the University of Minnesota and you're on the air with him. Now, what's your question? (00:29:22) Number one, I would think that a lunar base would also make a good assembly point and take off point for other missions to like Mars or the asteroids or elsewhere because of the low lunar gravity. And especially with the Advent of this place the space plane would seem to also offer a cheap way of getting stuff off the Earth to that point. The second thing. I'd like to like to address would be the Are lagging behind the Soviets in the space program? It seems that our political system and our method of annual budgeting and not being able to come up with long-range plans that we can make stick or a real handicap in our endeavors along this line. (00:30:09) That's absolutely right. Let me take the second question first because I can comment first because it's absolutely critical consideration for the future of our own space program the general lead time for constructing and launching a deep space planetary probe and the time required for it to get there is probably about 10 years and that's not due to any of inefficiency in the so that's simply due to the fact that these are very complicated missions technologically and sometimes even after they're built and launched the take a long time to get there. For example in October. The Galileo probe to Jupiter is finally going to leave and it's it will take six years after carrying out an Excursion in the inner solar system. And finally finally heading out word to Jupiter will take six years to get to Jupiter. So the time scales are very long and the fact that it is not possible in in the way the budgets are presently form. Needed to count on guaranteed long-term funding for Endeavors. Like this is one of the strongly crippling aspects of the way. We conduct our space program. It is in fact reviewed and authorized and appropriated every single year by Congress. And so one cannot predict three years from now exactly what the money what money will be available to do. What now, we have an idea. There are certain base level fundings. And so it's not every year an all-or-nothing situation, but it is difficult in in this kind of financial environment and this particular way of doing business to count on the long-term stability that one needs in order to plan a coherent planetary program the Soviets have Rather the same problem that we don't hear very much about it. We are beginning to hear more in this time of glass noticed. They they do not have the yearly funding battles that tend to occur here. They have they have longer range plans and they tend to stick to them but they are also a nation that is stretched financially and they've also had some setbacks in their space program the last two or three years and this has called certain aspects of the of their program and the finances that are expended to support it into question on that side of the ocean as well. I think that all nations have common problems in this direction. It is not the way we scientists would prefer to do business, but it seems to be an intrinsic part of the political process no matter what color flag is waving above the particular State House involved your second question. Yes, you're absolutely right. The the lunar base would make a good staging platform sir for the assembly and launch of deep space planetary probes and possibly even For subsequent manned missions, the lower lunar gravity is of course, the essential key is you pointed out. (00:33:01) Okay, another listener waiting with a question here. Thank you. You're on the air. Go ahead. (00:33:05) Yes, sir. My question concerns the benefits of the the entire Space Program, you know for both countries the US and Soviet Union. I'm trying to convince my grandmother on the importance of it and she asked me to name her three things that may have changed her life based on that on these programs. She doesn't see why it's important to that. Could you please try to explain to her? Why do you know we should have this program? Thank (00:33:31) you. That's a very interesting question. I have had many discussions like this not with my grandmother but I suspect had she lived to the time the space Corps program began. I probably would have had as some as similar discussion with her. It's a difficult question to answer what moves me to be so enthusiastic about the space program is simply the fact that it I find it. From both an exploratory and a scientific sense to be so very very exciting. I do think that man has always existed one of the one of the really Hallmarks of humanity to explore and had we not done that had we had we put all the resources the Space Program into social and domestic concerns and had that been the Hallmark of human history. I suspect we'd still be occupying a fairly small part of the Tigris Euphrates Valley seeing no necessity to move beyond that the Practical benefits of the Space Program, which which possibly might be a better argument to use than this intellectual 14 your grandmother are of course Legion, they they range from improved communication devices and you might point out that to her the next time you talked to her on the telephone if the communication is going through a satellite relay, that's a direct output of NASA's activities and of the Space Program. Certain Plastics high temperature Ceramics, which have now metamorphosed into cookware of All Sorts. These are the so-called spin-off benefits of the program and they are the aspect of the program the most immediately affects everyday life simply the advance of technology that came along with the program and which has now cascaded downward from the high-tech constructional aspect of the program to everyday products the one buys and stores, but for me the large argument and I wish you luck in in exploring this with your grandmother. The compelling argument is simply the enormous scientific profit and understanding where we came from and where we are likely to go and the great spirit of Adventure that is in an inherent part of this program, which is taking us across the surface of the Earth and will eventually take us across the width and breadth of the solar system. (00:35:52) We have another listener waiting on some lines of opened up again in the Twin Cities. If you have a question for dr. Robert Pepin about space 2276 thousand the number in the Twin Cities and outside Minneapolis st. Paul. It's one 800 695 to 9700. That's the number you called on. Where were you from? (00:36:11) I'm calling from Sunny Duluth, Minnesota. (00:36:13) Yes, and your question ma'am (00:36:15) in the not only immediately but in the long-term future you're going to need a lot of people with both the extreme technical understanding but also the Practical understanding people like Richard Feynman, for example, given the state of the of the schools in the United States and apparently across the world where you going to get them (00:36:40) Well, I'm thinking about how to answer that question. I'll tell you it's very sunny in Minneapolis to that's a really real concern of most of us in the space program are in fact quite active and in various aspects of various elements of the educational system many of us are based in universities, but I think we even within that there's there's a tendency for people in the program to be quite concerned about the quality of Education in the kindergarten through 12th grade, which which actually this is the feed stock for the for the University students and eventually for the Space Program itself. One of the one of the things I've been very sad about and try to rectify every time I'm put in such a context is the fact that the space program and its enormous intrinsic interest and and intellectual stimulation is not used more as an example of the kind of activities that are inherent to to a technological career or scientific career in this country the space Graham has absolutely commanding visuals. It's one of the very few areas of science where you can see other worlds and other processes and unfold before your eyes is photographed by a space probe. And when I have had a chance to introduce this kind of material to young children in the elementary school system there absolutely fascinated. I walk out of a room of six or eight or ninth graders with the feeling that in 20 years another 20 years. I perhaps have had a small part in persuading two or three people that a scientific and technological career is an exciting and rewarding thing to do the general problem is one of the concerns is not only in this country, but in others as well, but I think particularly here with the rather convincing data that we seem to be falling behind other nations in in terms of the education of Our pre-college students comparisons and in various subjects on an international basis with Japan and Great Britain and Europe and the United States is showing the United States Lowdown on that ranking list in terms of academic accomplishment all too often. It's a great worry. I don't know what to do about it. But personally, I'm very concerned (00:39:02) we have about 15 minutes left to talk about space with. Dr. Pepin and we'll put you on with him now. Go ahead, please. Yes. (00:39:10) Yes. I was wondering I recently read in a magazine article that NASA is developing a plan for what they call a shuttle see our cargo version of the shuttle and I was wondering if the president has approved this or whatever is going to happen with it, you know anything about (00:39:25) that. Yeah, it's one of the battles of I have been waging personally and in concert with other people and I'm afraid may not have been one the shuttle see is such an eminently sensible idea that you could you you might wonder why it hasn't been implemented long ago with the Advent of the space station and the demands for hauling a lot of stuff up into orbit. The shuttle itself is not a terribly efficient vehicle for doing this because much of its payload capability is taken up with the life support system for the crew and for various kinds of technical support for the Orbiter itself shuttle. See would simply remove the Orbiter from the cost of solid-fuel rockets and main fuel tank. And strap on a cargo bay instead. So one would have several million pounds of thrust without the Orbiter but with the place of the Orbiter taken by Steel i-beams or whatever. They are planning to build a space station out of it's not a terribly expensive proposition because much of the technology is already in place with the present shuttle and yet it has gotten surprisingly short shrift in consideration of heavy lift launch launch Vehicles, which are clearly a need for the future. I would have suspected or I would have expected the shuttle see to be well on its way to Reality by now. In fact, it is not it's a little puzzling to see why (00:40:48) another caller has a question about space for a doctor Pepin. Thanks for waiting. You're on the air now. (00:40:53) Hello. Yes. I'd like to ask if you could say something about the timing of the breaking away of the moon from the earth. Secondly, have you searched in your moon samples for evidence of life or? Rudimentary life forms such as diatoms and things like that and thirdly could you perhaps go into into the the evidence that really suggests that came from the earth example distributions of elements in the moon samples or isotopes of that kind of thing. Thank you. (00:41:28) All right, the the timing of the giant impact is not something that's very well established. Now from the from the point of view of theoretical calculations on how long it probably took the Earth to assemble to a final Planet estimates that range from between ten and a hundred million years way back at the beginning the giant impact could could conceptually have occurred any time during that but probably more in the late stage. So if you want a guess that might be good to within say plus or minus 20 or 30 million years. My guess would be that the perhaps 50 million years after the earth started to accrete as a planet and perhaps a few tens of millions of years before it's finally settled down as a complete Planet this giant impact occurred, so So it would have been a very long time ago more than four and a half billion years ago in the very very early history of the earth just a few tens of millions of years after the whole accretion process started the detailed record of the chemical composition of the lunar rocks compared with Earth actually involves a number of elements. It happens to be elements that are quite refractory that are not very volatile. So they would not have been lost in this catastrophic catastrophic event things Trace elements things like tungsten and other other Trace elements that are not present in great abundance. But but which in their chemical composition relative to each other our diagnostic Clues as to the various kinds of processes that are planted went through and it is these signatures these Elemental abundances englishers not very much in the way of isotopic evidence, but Elemental abundances integers. That are so similar between terrestrial rocks and pristine lunar rocks. We would like to have more evidence than that. And I think as we continue to study the lunar samples and terrestrial samples We Will We Will attain more evidence is very interesting. By the way that the samples that we're comparing the lunar samples to our samples not from the crust of the earth which one can walk out and pick up any time but samples from the deep interior. And for those we depend on volcanic eruptions and other events on the surface of the Earth to bring to the surface to bring them up to the to the place where we can sample them in a very real and somewhat ironic sense. It is perhaps more difficult to get guaranteed samples from the interior of the earth and it is to get lunars Outlets. We almost need to mount an exploratory mission to the interior of our own planet in order to make this chemical case of very compelling one the final question whether there have been searches for fossilized microorganisms and Nurse oil. Yes in the first two or three missions that was one of of the shall we say most engaging and interesting targets of paleontological study. I can remember several people who acquired samples of lunar soil specifically for this reason to look very carefully through it for evidence of fossilized life. I think was very well understood. There was no life there. Now the question that you're really raising is could life have ever started on the moon and then bit arrested at a very early stage and interesting things were found which looked rather like fossilized micro Critters, but it turned out that these were simply little aggregations of glass and minerals that had been hammered into interesting micro shapes by meteorite bombardment and on clothes chemical analysis turned out not to be organic or fossilized organic material at all. The really interesting part of your application of your question, though. Will not be to the Moon it will be Tamar's when we get a sample of of the Martian soil back. There will be a very serious search for fossilized microorganisms because we now think in in current theories of the early history of that planet that it may well have supported A Primitive form of life before its water went away and it's temperature dropped and the planet essentially died. The early history of Mars may have been quite similar to the early history of the earth and therefore since we know that life existed on the earth also certainly three and a half billion years ago, perhaps as early as 3.8 billion years ago Mars might have had a salubrious climate for life as long as that in which case primitive life may have started there and we will certainly be looking for its remnants (00:45:54) when you suppose he might get those Martian (00:45:56) samples. (00:45:58) I (00:45:59) think there's a reasonably good chance that our program possibly carried out in cooperation with the Soviet Union might return the first samples from Mars. Just before or just into the New Millennium now, we probably do have samples from Mars. Now. There's there are a series of eight meteorites that exists in the world's collections two of which were recovered from the Antarctic ice cap, which show very strong chemical similarity to certain analysis made by the Viking expedition to Mars and we think that these meteorites are actually fragments of the Martian crust that have that were liberated by an impact on the surface of the planet thrown into space and collected by the Earth. So we probably do have a small amount of Martian material for study now, (00:46:47) Okay, let's move on to your question, please. Where you calling (00:46:49) from? Yes, good morning, dr. Pepper. And the first thing Anderson calling from Lake City. (00:46:54) Why seeing? How are (00:46:55) you really a pleasure to hear your voice on NPR again? We really enjoyed your lecture last fall and help you will be able to deliver a sequel this coming year (00:47:04) why thanks for saying that (00:47:07) this is my question. What comments can you make about the proposed balloon survey of Mars? You think it's a realistic project (00:47:15) indeed I do that is a fun project who would have ever suspected that the Martian atmosphere would be dense enough to support a large balloon. The French have been working very hard on the on the design of such a balloon. And I think there's a reasonable chance that it will fly on one of the Soviet missions to Mars in 1994 and 1996. It carries a small instrument package. It is actually two balloons one little pilot balloon and then a great big one below that during the night when the Martian atmosphere cools. Off the balloon losses left and it settles down to the surface of the instrument package goes and sits on the surface and presumably does some interesting things the next morning when the temperature rises again the balloon inflates and it takes off and it goes a winding its way across the planet following the winds and taking pictures in his little micro camera from from high altitude it there's a very good chance by the way that that are Mars 1992 Orbiter will be involved in this because we are installing a transponder on that on the on our spacecraft to be able to Monitor and relay the signals from the Soviet balloons when they're deployed. So this is one example of of what I think promises to be an extremely profitable and interesting International collaboration on that planet. (00:48:33) We have a full Bank of telephone lines let and not a whole lot of time but we'll take as many of you as we can in the next few minutes including you. Hello. Your (00:48:41) next question. I'd like the doctor's comments on the fact that We thought we were ahead of the Russians and now subsequent the Challenger you look up and find that their space stations have been there for an awful long time to have much more experience in space and we are and owing to the events in China political things do change. I wonder what the to be the most compelling reason for being there is the fact that they're they're ahead of us and like the doctors comments on that. (00:49:12) I used to think that way I'm not sure I do anymore. In fact, I wish them every success to to a very fundamental degree. I'm for space exploration. No matter who does it. So I'm very strongly supportive of the Soviet program The Secret of their success by the way is very interesting. It's The Tortoise and the Hare argument all over again. We have tended to be like the Rabid that leaps from one spectacular to another and when we pull off a spectacular it's a splendid thing. The the Russians have been more incremental in their program. They set themselves a series of rather modest goals. They reach those goals. They set another series slightly in advance of those and they Advanced incrementally and have been doing this for 20 years and they have caught up to the rabbit. In fact, and in some cases Havoc have have exceeded our capability certainly in terms of their of their experience in time and space on their mirror station. The the two Nations now are cooperating so closely in almost all aspects of space science that Isis. Expect that within 10 years. We really are going to be thinking of space has an international rather than a national Endeavor and that some of the more nationalistic thoughts that that 11 tends to associate with the various Nations space programs will begin to disappear. One thing that will drive this is simply the such an awfully expensive proposition that I'm not sure that one nation can afford it anymore. Yeah. (00:50:36) Okay. Another question for dr. Robert Pepin. You're on the air with him. Go ahead. (00:50:40) I was wondering do we need the moon to know life as we do on Earth today? And if it wasn't there what changes would we notice with the environment? (00:50:51) Ha ha what an interesting question. I wish I could really answer that. Yeah, we probably do need the moon. Think about this if there were no moon, then we would have very modest ties. They'd be they'd be caused only by the Sun and that means that the whole intertidal zone which was absolutely critical for the evolution of life from an oceanic to it. A to a open air environment would essentially not of have existed. They we would have an interface of the ocean with the sea which was not periodic reviews recessing and and advancing. I suspect though. I'm not a biologist that was that a this would have had a dramatic effect on the evolution of life on Earth. And that's something to think about the we discussed earlier the possibility that the event that form the Moon that is a giant impact on Earth if that theory turns out to be correct might have removed from the earth and atmosphere which at that time look very much like the atmosphere of Venus today. If that is correct, then yes, we do need the moon because if we had not had the moon and it had not formed in this way our atmosphere today would look like Venus with a surface temperature of 900 Degrees and you wouldn't be here to ask that question and I wouldn't be here to answer (00:52:05) and we would not even have a minute left which we do right now. So one quick question from you and that'll be it. Go (00:52:10) ahead. Around 1974 and NASA invited young people to submit experiments for Skylab 1975. My question is what happened to those experiments and are their future plans for young people to get involved in space (00:52:26) experiments. I'm pleased to report that the experiments flew. In fact, I can remember sitting on a judging panel here in the Midwest to evaluate some of the candidate experiments and some of them were fascinating and some bees and beans and everything you could imagine in orbit under zero gravity conditions that ended that was quite a successful in ended of course with the Challenger disaster as all shuttle activities. Did I have not heard any talk specifically a Reviving it but that was a great program and I have no doubt that it will come back. (00:52:56) Well, I thank you, sir for coming in and answering our questions today. It was delightful. It's always a lot of fun to talk to. Dr. Robert Pepin who is a physicist at the University of Minnesota and has had a long long many years of activity in the space program. Not too many though. Well, no young man, but that they made possible by Ecolab Incorporated and it's Chemlawn subsidiary. I'm Bob Potter.