Editor’s Note: For now over 75 years, The Baylor Line has been publishing vivid storytelling from across the Baylor Family. I don’t think our archives full of deep, inspirational features should live solely on shelves, so we are bringing them back to life in BL Classics. This September – October 1969 Classic looks at the moon landing through the lens of science and faith.
An Historian’s Perspective
By Dr. Ralph Lynn
Professor of History
Paradoxically, this latest triumph of ingenuity and courage has already been praised too much and can never be praised enough. Too much, because the people involved are acutely aware of how much they owe their predecessors and because a surfeit of praise embarrassed honest men. And never enough, because Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins, having already achieved more than most of us ever will, nevertheless laid it all on the line so that mankind might the more completely “slip the sullen bonds of earth.”
But I was not asked to praise this exploit; I was asked to appraise it — to try to put it into its probable historical context. The appraisal is my own but I confess I would be disappointed if many of my fellow historians should seriously disagree.
Clio, the Greek muse of history, and her disciples saw something new on July 20, 1969.
As earth men count time, two of their number walked on the moon on that date.
We have convincing evidence that this event occurred.
But we can also guess at the significance of this event. The guess here is that the event will prove to be significant primarily in furthering the fairly steady decline of traditional religion which, necessarily or not, marks modern history.
Men have never understood the significance of their acts.
Contemporaries, and sometimes the historians who come later, may know the narrative facts about an event but their estimate of its significance is untrustworthy.
We Westerners now regard 732 as the date of the guarantee that the West would remain Christian instead of becoming Moslem. In a longer perspective, this date may acquire a different meaning or it may sink into insignificance.
The annalist in the monastery near Tours, without the benefit of a thousand years of hindsight, made a single entry for 732: “Charles Martel fought the Saracens.”
Perhaps this nameless monk was only playing it safe. Life for historians is dangerous enough if they stick to the past and ignore the present.
But since 732, we have developed the means of enabling all the earth’s people simultaneously to observe the actual unfolding of current events on earth in space. This has fostered a universal if superficial and feverish interest in current events. The satisfaction of this febrile interest in the news demands the talents, not of the historian, but of the fortune-teller.
But if we assume the validity of the old saw that the past is the best indicator of the future, then perhaps the historians should muster the courage to offer some comments on the significance of man’s conquest of the moon.
“The evidence is that as man extends his control over Nature, he stands in increasingly less awe of the God of Nature.”
This historian is willing to predict that the moon walk will be only a relatively insignificant chapter, with particular reference to religion, in the record of the impact of science on general cultural affairs. This story began, in the modern world, with Copernicus.
Many, however, are now greeting this spectacular triumph of technology as a panacea with specific curative properties for our population problem, which is brand new, and for the problem of international ill will, which is ancient.
But the walk on the moon, however pleasant a feeling of power and unity it may momentarily give all mankind, will likely have no significance as an answer to our awesome population explosion nor will it promote peace and good will among men.
Unless we arrest our present rate of population growth, the world will have to export 200 million people annually by the time the present college generation is seventy years old. And this world only stabilize the world’s population at a suffocating 10 billion. Even if we could mount such a massive annual migration, our present growth rate, if continued, would flood space vehicles in transit to any really distant planet and would soon flood any habitable planet, near or far. Moreover, if the conquest of the moon enables us to predict or perhaps to control weather and climates, this latest scientific advance may only accelerate our cancerous population growth.
Clearly, space exploration is not a solution to this problem.
Prophecies that the moon walk may help solve scientific and material problems are downright reasonable compared to the pious but groundless hopes that it may signal an era of peace and good will among men.
Beginning with the sixteenth century, mankind has dreamed endless dreams of new beginnings in the New Worlds of the Americas, Australia, Africa, and Oceania.
But Christian or Communist, the men of the Old Worlds, retaining their sinful character wherever they have gone, have always corrupted the new worlds. Every utopia has been wrecked by human selfishness; the new nations have faithfully repeated the ancient follies. Just as the European nations have, since 1942, fought each other around the world, so the moon and other planets will become battlegrounds.
To paraphrase the Scriptures a bit, if we have not learned from Moses and Jesus, we are unlikely to learn from even this most spectacular of latter day, man-made miracles.
The chief significance of the moon walk, then, is likely to be found in its impact upon religion.
If the past is a dependable indicator of the future, the champions of traditional religion can take no comfort from man’s conquest of the moon.
For, entirely aside from the sophomoric comment of the Soviet astronaut that God does not exist because the finite man did not see the Infinite in space, the evidence is that as man extended his control over Nature, he stands in increasingly less awe of the God of Nature.
A few years ago, for Sunday school class, I dashed off a new version of “Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star.” Perhaps it tells a good deal of the story.
Twinkle, twinkle, little star!
I know exactly what you are
For I’m the one who put you thar—
Up above the world so high—
An electronic payload in the sky.
And modern psychology has prompted a new version of the prayer of our childhood. Conscious of life’s uncertainties and humble before apparently insoluble mysteries, we oldsters prayed that if we died before we walked, God would take out souls to Himself. Now, the children ask God’s guidance “through the starry night” and to be awakened, not if but when, “the sun shines bright.”
Finally, Will Durant, writing of Copernicus, summed up the scholar’s view of the significance of science for religion many years before space exploration was more than science fiction.
“That pious Polish monk,” Durant wrote, “sitting patiently before the baffling stars, had meant no harm; he had no suspicion of the bearings of his thoughts on the future of beliefs; he had lost himself in the search for knowledge; he was sure that all truth must be good and beautiful, and would make men free. And so, by the magic of his mathematics, he transformed a geocentric and anthropomorphic universe—a world which revolved
Offering no panacea for the earth’s ill, the moon walk is seen as but the latest gust of the chilling wind of science on traditional religion.
about the earth and man — into a kaleidoscope of planets and stars in which the earth seemed but a moment’s perception of a floating nebula. Everything was changed—-distances, significances, destinies. And God, who had been closer than hands and feet, who had seemed to inhabit the friendly and flowing clouds, disappeared into the far reaches of illimitable space. It was as if the walls of man’s house had been torn down by some blind and angry wind, leaving him unsheltered in the darkness of infinity.”
The informed and the sensitive among us, even if they have managed to hold on to the traditional faith, have long been chilled by this angry wind — of which the moon walk is the largest gust.
Our conquest of the moon will likely lead chiefly to additional technological advances.
It will likely not help us to deal realistically with our real problems. We will likely continue to limit population by the ancient, brutal methods and the world will likely remain an armed camp.
Clio can relax : the script will not change appreciably.
A Geologists Appreciation
By Dr. J. W. Dixon
Chairman, Department of Geology
Geology is the science of the earth. So why should a geologist be interested in the moon? All scientists are possessed with an intellectual curiosity, otherwise they would not be scientists. Geologists have a special interest that goes farther than this intellectual curiosity. While the restricted definition of geology limits study to the earth, in modern usage the term is being extended to include similar studies of the moon (Selenology) and other bodies in space.
Even if geologists are limited to studies of the earth there is considerable interest in the moon. It may possibly provide answers to a number of problems concerning the earth itself that have been troublesome since the beginning of geology as a scientific discipline. The origin of the earth, because of its singularity and remoteness in time, has received the attention of many geologists. To date, no generally accepted hypothesis has been set forth, though many have been proposed.
In solving problems of origin geologists usually rely on numerous examples for their evidence. For example, geologists usually rely on numerous examples for their evidence. For example, geologists have about 500 active volcanoes and thousands of extinct volcanoes to study in deciding how volcanoes originate. The origin of the earth is a singular event only because we have been restricted to this one body in our study. It is likely that the other bodies revolving about the sun (planets and their moons) originated in the same manner as the earth. Man’s exploration of the moon approximately doubles our available evidence for mode of origin of the earth and similar bodies.
The age of the earth has been a subject for speculation by the layman and investigation by the geologist for centuries. The moon may yield the answer to this question. Since the discovery of radiometric dating of rocks we have been able to determine the age of certain rocks with considerable confidence in our accuracy. We know that the earth must be at least as old as the oldest rocks found on the earth.
Our chief difficulty lies in the fact that that the materials in the upper part of the earth’s crust, to which man has access, have been through the Rock Cycle, that is, have been weathered, eroded, transported, deposited and reconstituted into new rocks, so many times that the date of their origin in present form must be much later than that of the origin of the first rocks. How much later it is not possible to determine.
The moon has no atmosphere, hence no weathering. Much of the moon’s surface must be little changed from that surface it had when it, the earth, and other bodies of our solar system were formed. Study of a representative sampling of moon rocks may supply the answer to the often asked question, “How old is the earth?”
The moon, for reasons mentioned above, may indicate to us the nature of the original surface of the earth. The moon is a “dead world” and by comparison we may evaluate the effects of life on earth on its present conditions.
Earth scientists have become moon scientists in their quest to learn the age and origin of our planet.
These are only some of the reasons for geological interest in man’s exploration of the moon. The geologists has little interest in economic mineral production on the moon. The cost of reaching the moon, producing minerals, and returning them to the earth seems prohibitive in the foreseeable future. The cost of rocks and dust brought back by Apollo XI astronauts must be by any sort of accounting many millions of dollars per pound. The Apollo XI moon mission is not only the longest geology field trip ever taken, it is the most expensive. Its findings should turn out to be highly interesting and informative to all geologists.
A Journalists’ Appraisal
By David McHam
Associate Professor of Journalism
Perhaps the assessment of how big a story this was — men landing and walking on the moon — will have to await the historians.
Thus far the reaction has been unusually noncontroversial, which itself is something of an assessment. But it’s the kind of event that the longer you focus on it the harder it is to see with any clarity.
We began by being wary that it could succeed. An Associated Press story on July 14 out of Cape Kennedy said: “. . .thode closest to the moon landing mission are reminding themselves of the possibility that it might fail.”
But suddenly it was Sunday afternoon with all the world looking on and the drama of Neil A. Armstrong, the kind of grown-up All-American boy, and Edwin E. Aldrin guiding the landing craft to the surface.
“Flash,” said United Press International. “They Landed.” “Flash,” said the Associated Press. “Astronaunts Land On Moon.”
Armstrong said: “Houston. We uh . . . Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed.”
The rest of us were speechless. Even Walter Cronkite was having difficulty finding words to describe what all of us were feeling. Later he recovered somewhat to say: “People have the audacity to say nothing new is going on these days!”
The New York Times not only got out its biggest type, but enlarged it to say “MEN WALK ON THE MOON.” By the time the papers hit the streets the landing was taking second place to the walking. Much later a writer for The National Observer made an incidental assessment of the adventure that will probably have to await the historians judgement. He called it “The Event of our age.”
In the short range there are few evaluations that won’t be mundane. Perhaps some day walking on the moon will seem elementary. But for the moment, at least until Apollo 12, we can savour the event and relate it to our lives. If nothing else we can tell our grandchildren, the way grandfathers today tell of that other Sunday so many ago when the radio blared the news about Pearl Harbor.
For those of us in journalism there are many other practical applications that we can put to use immediately. We’ve been sensing a change in the pattern of news and perhaps “The Event of our age” will become a point in time. Attesting to this was the emphasis put on “The Event” by news media, both here and abroad.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration handed out credentials to 3,700 reporters, photographers, technicians, public relations men and others news-related personnel. An estimated 2,300 newsmen witnessed the launch at the Cape. By contrast, only about 600 persons were accredited for the first B. Shepard Jr. in 1961. NASA figures put the number of foreign newsmen at 840 from 55 nations speaking 33 languages. Japan alone had 115 correspondents.
All of the sudden violence and disaster — the grist of news in a bygone age – paled by comparison. Even Vietnam seemed further away than the moon.
All of the sudden violence and disaster — the grist of news in a bygone age — paled by comparison. Even Vietnam seemed further away than the moon.
We are beginning to realize that this complex era requires a more refined approach. We have had trouble explaining many of the stories of the day — race, relations. The generation gap, poverty, even war. And now space.
On July 20, 1969, Neil A. Armstrong opened the door of the lunar module and climbed down to the moon at 9:56 :20 p.m. (EDT). He represented man. He said so.. Why did he go? What of the cost — the $24 billion, the technological effort, the order of priorities under which we solved so many of the problems of space before turning to those of earth?
In addition there are traditional questions we have faced in trying to explain the other stories that have changed man’s way of life. These questions also apply to the exploration of space. What does it all mean? Where are we going from here? What are the applications? What does it mean to ME? These questions must be answered. And it is the journalist who must seek out those answers.
We come poorly prepared.
Those of us involved in teaching journalism must acknowledge the obvious fact that concentration on “how-to-do-it” aspects of the learning experience must be augmented with emphasis on the subject matter significantly today. And while no subject matter is excluded, some obvious areas are political science, history, sociology, philosophy, religion, economics, with more emphasis placed on language and literature as the tools of expression.
At Baylor we have hopefully begun to respond to trying to instill awareness as we teach procedures.
Journalism and radio-TV students study news as well as the way news is gathered and disseminated. At the same time they are encouraged to include all information with which they come into contact within the body of knowledge they will need to be effective as journalists. This may be in a physics or art class, in a lecture series or in the exchange of information with fellow students.
But more needs to be done and specific methods of preparing students for the future must be devised. Otherwise teaching becomes irrelevant and meaningless.
For journalists the moon experience is indicative of the challenge before us, and we must be careful not to misgauge the complexity of the task before us. News in the mold of the moon landing may be easy to relay in comparison to the explanation of goals, aims and justification of the space program on a day-by-day basis.
Mankind’s biggest news story underscores a need for better training for tomorrow’s journalists.
And this holds for news in many other areas. What’s happening may be important but not dramatic. The riots of the cities are dramatic, but the problems that brought on the riots are difficult to communicate. The same could be said for trying to explain rising costs, nuclear disarmament, the ABM, conflicts of interest, tax reform, organ transplants or just about any area.
The substance of news in the future will be more technical in nature and journalists face the task of learning to put it in personal terms, not only to tell about the people involved but also to tell what means for those indirectly involved. Otherwise the reader, the viewer and the listener may not be receptive.
The story of man’s voyage to the moon is not merely an account of details, the facts. It is the culmination of scientific, economic, political, historical, social and philosophical efforts.
And while it was the culmination, it was the beginning. Or at least, a new beginning.
A Space Physicist’s Musings
By W. Merle Alexander
Associate Professor of Physics
One man took one step, and the dreams of centuries became reality for mankind. For two hours, over half a billion of us watched two men explore a few hundred square feet of lunar space. For centuries man could not even dream of going to the moon — the moon was a goddess to be worshiped. Then with the evolution of science and technology man began to dream of going not only to the moon but even to the stars. For all these centuries and thousands more, the dust of the moon’s surface lay undisturbed by any living thing — and now man’s footprints will lie undistributed in the dust of the moon.
As the hatch closed and only the spacecraft and footprints could be seen, a flood of random thoughts filled my mind. I thought of Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton, who established the basis of the science of which could chart the paths to the moon and beyond; of myriads of men like da Vinci, Jules Verne, and Arthur Clarke who stirred men’s imaginations and helped them believe they could leave the earth and return safely; and of men — like Goddard, Oberth, Von Braun, Pickering, and Gilruth — whose work in engineering and technology really made it possible. These men and many others pointed and led the way in man’s journey from the planet.
In a little more than twenty years, we have moved from the first rocket shots at White Sands to Tranquility Base. Though the time seems incredibly short now, the way was filled with hardships, frustrations, and failures as well as successes. The vivid memory of an Atlas crumbling on itself after rising eight feet from the launch pad remains etched in my mind. The disappointment in the control room as we watched the first series of unmanned lunar shots disintegrate when they reached max-Q is also unforgettable. Then we all remember the Rangers, 7, 8 , and 9 — with the, at that time, spectacular instantaneous TV pictures as the spacecraft plunged into the surface.
When the manned program moved through the Gemini series, the unmanned effort sent the first Surveyor to a soft landing on the moon. I will never forget the incredible level of excitement as the pictures kept coming in and we made the first attempts to gather information from them. The total success of that first soft landing seemed a miracle, and we forgot for a time that our successes evolved from our failures. As time passed, though, our successes more and more replaced our failures. The path for Apollo to the moon seemed straightforward — then the tragedy and trauma of Apollo 204: lessons we thought were learned were not and an awful price was paid. Now the footprints — Armstrong and Aldrin, yes ; but also Collins. Grissom, White, Chaffee, Borman, Stafford, and on and on all the way to Goddard and Newton and Kepler.
The reality of Apollo is now and for the future. But words like hunger, population explosion, poverty, ghetto, racial strife are NOW and are REAL problems. Questions and doubts flood the mind. Can or should we as a nation attempt to maintain, decrease, or expand our space program when these problems and others scream for solution? Even if the answer is affirmative, can our economy provide the base necessary to support the programs required to achieve goals in all areas? For me, the answer must be a firm yes.
Many people attempt to justify the space program with reference to the technology “fall out” directly or indirectly related to it. While there is a large amount of truth in these claims, it is quite difficult to be sure
What we should have learned from this venture is the magnitude of accomplishment possible for mankind.
of the precise dollar values involved. Of course, it is easy now to see the effect of this technological “fall out” in communications, world-wide weather observation, and other areas relating to this planet and its atmosphere.
But there are tangible values that are unique to an effort such as our space venture. For every human, the events that occur, the effort made, the goals achieved must invade, excite, and expand our minds. Involvement in an effort of this nature necessarily extends our thoughts and skills beyond what is now our outermost limits. When a man sets a goal beyond his tested performance, and then achieves this goal, he has found a path to greater self-realization. We have seen how large groups of men may reach out beyond themselves and achieve wonders. The space effort has been a manifestation of this. Exacting and rigorous engineering principles and testing had to be applied for Apollo 11 to touch down successfully on the lunar surface; however, the challenge to achieve a goal “set out beyond” has been an intangible always present in the effort.
The space program has involved large groups of people successfully working at all levels of technological competence. The problems facing our nation today present an even greater challenge than that represented an even greater challenge than that represented by Apollo 11 and will require even larger groups of people. Our nation’s achievement of the goals of putting a man on the moon can provide the inspiration and encouragement that we need to know that we can meet and solve the even greater socio-economic problems facing us today. For it is the reality of now that these problems must be solved; or ultimately, in the universe, man’s footprints will be found only in the dust of the moon.
Some Christian Considerations
By Dr. Bob E. Patterson
Associate Professor of Religion
That man’s first excursion on the moon has important implications worthy of study by the historian and the scientist, no one questions. But one might ask why the theologian should concern questions. But one might ask why the theologian should concern himself with such a purely scientific achievement. Anything which affects the quality of the life of man is justifiable territory for the Christian theologian. What one can say at this point in time about the theological significance of the event of man;s conquest of space must be tempered with the realization that what we have so recently witnessed may represent only the opening of a door. It is, I feel, a door which the Christian need not fear to enter.
The historical feat of man’s walking on the moon must be seen as a fulfillment, on one hand, and a mere beginning, on the other.
The moon project is the fulfillment in the technological area of the overall vocation that God has given men. Man is subject to God his Creator, but man has been given overseership of God’s created order. Man should recognize God as his Lord, and also recognize that God has made lord of his environment. Technological breakthroughs are now enabling man to extend his lordship to new parts of his environment. There is no reason to suppose that this lordship of man’s cannot extend into the cosmos as far as space travel will take him. Man is a pilgrim on any planet where he can land, but he is also under Divine obligation to be a creative colonizer wherever he can put his foot.
The moon landing may be only the beginning step to reach the outer planets. But in no way has it solved man’s basic problem — which is man himself. Even if we do eventually establish an outpost on Mars. man will still have to live with himself. If we find innocent life on other planets it will cease to be innocent as soon as we land.
The old quip about the Conquistadors landing on the shores of America, “first they fell on their knees, and then they fell on the Aborigines.” still rings true for the space age. If we cannot sustain life on other planets and we cannot get out of our own solar system we must finally reconcile ourselves to living with ourselves. Jesus still has the best word on how to do this, either on the shores of the Dead Sea or the craters of the Sea of Tranquility.
The moon landing also has implications for the popular superstitions of our day and for the mission of the Church.
Hopefully, the moon shot may help to alleviate a great deal of popular superstition. Astrology has moved beyond a few odd cultists and is getting a firm grip on the imagination of a sizable section of our citizenry. Otherwise sane people are buying astrology material at the corner drug store in alarming numbers. This cult of defeatism has a deterministic outlook about human behavior and future historical events that is anti-Christian.
The moon shot should help to reassert the biblical notion that the material world is for man’s use and enjoyment rather than being the arbiter of man’s fate; that sun, moon, and stars are subjects to man’s investigation and utilization as is any other part of God’s created order. Man is not the plaything of blind cosmic fates and he should never allow anything in the natural order to become demonically stifling of his creative potential.
The moon venture may provide an unparalleled new opportunity for the Church’s missionary outreach. Viable forms of life, with powers to communicate with us meaningfully, may well exist in parts of our universe. If these rational beings have not heard the good news about God in Christ, the Church would have the opportunity through space-age technology of sharing with them.
On the other hand, if they were more spiritually advanced than we are, they could share their understanding and new forms of life with us. Even if we are unable to reach these rational beings by rocket ship, we may well communicate with them by radio beams.
The moon landing is merely a first step in launching ourselves into the farther reaches of space. Who knows what wonderful things God may have in store for us in other parts of His universe? He certainly keeps surprising us on the small planet that we now occupy, and He may have undreamed of possibilities for us on other planets.
Finally, this achievement presents both some national problems and possibly some international solutions.
The moon probe has posed a serious problem about priorities. Does our government have the moral right to build a germless frontier outpost at the pile of Mars while neglecting the deadly sickness in our slums? Could the tax dollar be spent more wisely on medical research and job training for the underprivileged than in hauling back a tub full of rocks from a dead sub-planet? These are questions we must face. The Christian faith can help our leaders face up to this moral dilemma and give some guidelines in allocating federal funds.
At the same time, however, the moon shot provides a wholesome new avenue of legitimate competition with Russia. Heretofore, the U.S. has focused its competition with Russia on one terrifying area, nuclear arms. Since competition with the Soviets is inevitable for decades to come, the space race provides a healthy alternative by getting national eyes off the atomic trigger. National energies poured into such ventures as the Armstrong-Aldrin stroll could ease this tension between the two nations, afford an area for mutual co-operation, provide a setting for friendly overtures, and dampen some of the dangerous hostilities of the cold war.
A Back Seat for Ham
By Tom Lindley
Baylor News Service
HAM helped put Apollo XI on the moon, yet his role will be largely unknown beside those of Neil Armstrong, Edwin Aldrin and Michael Collins in tomorrow’s history books.
HAM’s early contribution to the United States’ space program was a part of the less glamorous but extensive ground-based laboratory research that preceded man;s landing on the moon. That is why Dr. Herbert Reynolds, vice president for administration and research at Baylor and former director of research of the Aeromedical Research Laboratory at Holloman Air Force Base, viewed with special interest man’s first step on the moon. He believes that such an accomplishment is a result of pre-flight research — like that beginning with a chimpanzee named HAM.
Although no longer associated with the space program, Dr. Reynolds was extensively involved from 1961-1968 in research projects relating directly to the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs.
When the United States announced plans in March of 1959 for Project Mercury, designed to orbit a man, a great amount of systematic research had to be conducted to insure his safety. “ Western philosophy places ultimate value on man and science will do everything it can to prevent loss of human life,” Dr. Reynolds said.
When he joined the research team at the Aeromedical Research Laboratory in 1961, a major prevailing question was whether man would be able to carry out required performance tasks in space and whether he could safely eat and drink in weightlessness. “To insure man’s safety we needed non-human subjects as precursors whose physiology and behavior would allow them to experience what man would experience in space,” Dr. Reynolds explained. That is where HAM — whose name was derived from Holloman Aeromedical Laboratory — fitted into the program.
HAM was sent into flight by a Mercury Red-Stone 2 rocket in January of 1961 to measure the effects of flights on learned behavior and to provide performance information prior to manned flights. The results of HAM’s flight and others using chimpanzees as “stand-ins” proved that man’s performance would be relatively unaffected during weightlessness, that eating and drinking were accomplished without difficulty and that behavioral measures are essential in assessing effects of space flight on living organisms. “Today anyone who takes even a passing interest in the space program knows that man can perform quite well in space but in 1961 these were serious questions that needed answering, “ Dr. Reynolds said.
Such experiments involving chimpanzees and other nonhuman primates were the first of a series of research projects conducted at Holloman regarding man’s performance in space and its effect upon him. The Aeromedical Research Laboratory also conducted studies of impact forces on the human body utilizing a sled mounted on a dual rail track. “We were concerned with the force and impact that occurred during launch, reentry and landing and what seat and restraint configuration the astronauts should maintain during these phases,” Dr. Reynolds explained. The sled can attain a speed equivalent to 150 times the force of gravity (150 G’s ). The device is pumped up much like a BB gun, depending on the desired speed, and is halted by a water braking device. It is referred to as the “Daisy sled because of its air rifle characteristics.
Volunteer test subjects rode the Daisy sled, including two Baylor exes, John Paul Stapp and Eli Beeding Jr., who were exposed to the most hazardous G forces ever encountered on this and a sister sled.
While the dangers of weightlessness and impact caused great concern, Dr. Reynolds said there were other dangers that were not so well known by the public. High-energy fuels play a vital role in space exploration, but are very dangerous to man because they are often toxic and affect his central nervous system. The harmful effects of these fuels and certain capsule coolants were included in the laboratory’s study of hazardous environments.
In 1964 research work began at Aeromedical Lab on rapid decompression to vacuum and near vacuum states. The prospect of decompression accidents such as loss of cabin pressure or suit rupture during extravehicular activity were distinct possibilities. Using chimpanzees as substitutes for men, Dr. Reynolds (and later Baylor ex Alfred Koestler of the Aeromedical Lab) sought answers to such questions as: What durations of exposure to the near vacuum can man survive? What is the time of useful consciousness following decompression to a near vacuum? And how does performance during and after decompression to the near vacuum compare with pre-exposure performance?
The results of 18 decompression experiments demonstrate that man can survive sudden exposure to a near vacuum (2 mm mercury ) up to two and a half minutes and recover without subsequent pathology.
After his years at the Aeromedical Laboratory, Dr. Reynolds was interim director of the Air Force Human Resources Laboratory in San Antonio and later manager of Human Resources Research and Utilization at General Dynamics in Fort Worth prior to his Baylor appointment on April1 of this year. During his professional career Dr. Reynolds has published some 50 papers and is editor of a book on primates in medical research.
