NASA Headquarters Oral
History Project
Edited Oral History Transcript
Ruben F.
Mettler
Interviewed by Carol Butler
Redondo Beach, California – 7 April 1999
Butler: Today
is April 7, 1999. This oral history with Dr. Ruben Mettler is being
conducted by Carol Butler at the TRW Space Park Facility in Redondo
Beach, California.
Thank you for joining us today.
Mettler: I'm
pleased to be here and pleased to participate.
Butler: Thank
you. To start with, can you tell us about your roles and responsibilities
at Ramo-Wooldridge [Corporation] in the mid-fifties as the ICBM [Intercontinental
Ballistic Missile] program was coming about?
Mettler: Yes.
I came to Ramo-Wooldridge [RW] in 1955, having just previously been
in the Pentagon and in the White House for a year, working for Don
[Donald A.] Quarles. Before that, I had known Si [Dr. Simon Ramo]
and Dean [Wooldridge] when they were [at] Hughes [Aircraft Company],
so I was at Hughes Aircraft Company for several years before that.
My first task there, arriving in 1955, was as an assistant director
of what was then called the Guided Missile Research Division [GMRD].
Ramo-Wooldridge had, in the prior year, received an Air Force contract
to do the system engineering and technical direction for the Atlas
and subsequent ballistic missile programs. My first assignment there
was to begin an analysis, along with an Air Force group, of the feasibility
of a rapid development of an IRBM, an Intermediate Range Ballistic
Missile, which would be aimed at achieving a 2,000-mile range, whereas
the ICBM was aimed at a 6,000-mile range. So that was the first task.
We worked during the rest of '55, studying this and analyzing it and
did conclude that it was possible to use technology and components
and all kinds of learning that had gone into the ICBM for the easier
problem of the 2,000-mile range. We got authorization in the fall,
actually early December, and I was appointed as the TRW [Thompson
Ramo Wooldridge, Inc.] system engineer and program manager for what
turned out to be the Thor missile.
Butler: Before
you came to Ramo-Wooldridge, had you been aware of the programs to
establish the ballistic missiles, and had you been aware of the Soviet
progress on that?
Mettler: Yes,
indeed. I was certainly aware of it when I was in Washington [D.C.]
for a year. I spent my mornings in the Pentagon and my afternoons
over in the old State Department Building, and it was very clear,
particularly when the United States tested its first nuclear weapon
in '52, and when the Soviets then tested their first nuclear weapon
in '53, and when it was known that a number of the German scientists
had been taken over to the Soviet Union, and when a radar that the
United States put in Turkey pointing up over the mountains caught
the top of a trajectory, of a ballistic trajectory. If it's ballistic,
if you just see part of the arc, it's possible to know where it came
from and where it went, so it was known that they were working on
it. In fact, actually the Soviets publicized it a little bit, that
they were working on a long-range ballistic missile.
So that was very clearly known and understood, and this early nuclear
shot by the Soviets in '53 helped to create a great sense of urgency,
and that's why the special arrangement was made for the Air Force
and General [Bernard A.] Schriever and the whole group to come out
to what was then called Western Development Division [WDD], to initiate
a crash program which, of course, over the years turned out to be
exceedingly successful, and reversed the missile gap, if you will.
Butler: Was
it quite a surprise to American engineers and scientists, and even
the government, to see that Soviet ballistic program going? Because
in America, the ballistic missile program hadn't been considered as
a real possibility at that time? Is that correct?
Mettler: Yes,
it certainly was, and it was a surprise and it created an alarm. At
that point the U.S. missile program, and there were a series of air-breathing
missiles and they generally were low-altitude missiles, patterned
really after aircraft, and the idea of doing a long-range ICBM was
simply not in the program at that point in time. It was that study
of the feasibility of that, that General Schriever and Dr. [John]
von Neumann and his committee asked Si and Dean, who had just started,
started in a barbershop, as a matter of fact, in West Los Angeles,
just started the Ramo-Wooldridge Company to do an analysis of it.
The analysis indicated that although there were significant advances,
technological advances, that would be required because the technology
was not all in hand, it was feasible if an aggressive program that
included some new science, some new engineering, some new technology
to do a long-range ballistic missile. And that is what stirred it
all up and created the crash program.
Butler: As
the program was coming under way and as all this technology was developing
and the methodology for building it and the different materials needed,
was there early discussions or thoughts on applying them to space?
Mettler: It
was very clear to everybody that if you could achieve a 6,000-mile
ballistic missile, a little more velocity would miss the Earth on
the other side and, hence, go into orbit. So it was very clear that
a 6,000-mile ICBM, if the payload was reduced or if an additional
stage was added, could, without any doubt, be a launcher for a satellite.
I used to try to explain that by saying, well, now, [Isaac] Newton,
in the seventeenth century—I guess it was seventeenth, yes—had
the analogy that if you imagined that there was a tower that was twenty
miles high, you threw a rock out, it would land. You threw it a little
harder, it would go farther. If you threw it hard enough, it would
go around and hit you in the back of your head. So there was no mystery
about the fact that some additional velocity and additional technology
could become the launcher for satellites and for space.
Butler: When
did you first learn that the Soviets were going to make an attempt
to apply the launchers to space or was it after they did launch Sputnik?
And when they did, what was your reaction?
Mettler: Well,
I think, of course, Sputnik, because it just happened and burst onto
the scene, was the first demonstration, it surprised many people,
as you know, that they'd already done it, but there were precursors.
There was evidence that they were working in the long-range ballistic
missile program, and there was some talk about, well, maybe in ten
years or maybe in five years there'll be space shots. What was not
anticipated is that the crashing urgency for the military purposes
accelerated the schedule from what had been generally thought it for
by—I can't say how many, but four, five, six, for a number of
years.
Butler: When
Sputnik did go up, were there concerns then that reflected on the
programs that you were working on with the ICBM and the IRBM, with
America not being able to catch up to the Soviets, and even with the
size of Sputnik?
Mettler: Yes,
indeed. There was no question that Sputnik changed the attitudes and
a number of the decisions in the Defense Department and really all
the way up to the President, President [Dwight D.] Eisenhower, because
it was a demonstration that they then, the Soviets, if you recall,
then tried to advertise as a rationale for having a superior economic
system, and this propaganda, what it really was, was quite effective
and surprised and affected many people around the world.
There's no question that it stimulated the urgency, and schedules
were shortened. I can recall clearly one trip that General Schriever
made to Washington at that time. He came back and he said, "Your
schedule is now one year earlier than it was," and that went
through the whole program. Also it was one of the rationales for the
IRBM. It was clearly an easier problem to do a 2,000-mile ballistic
missile than a 6,000 mile. The idea was that an early, quick, really
very crash program for a short-range weapon could then, in emergency,
be deployed forward in England or Italy, even Turkey, if necessary.
So Sputnik was an accelerator. It was a catalyst, maybe is the best
way to say it.
Butler: As
this catalyst did come in and spur things forward, at that time were
there discussions on manned space programs?
Mettler: There
were some. The Air Force had some papers and RAND [Corporation] did
some studies about space. There was not an active, immediate program,
although the Air Force did initiate a space program for unmanned surveillance
satellites. They called it the 117L, I think. But it wasn't advertised
as to what it really was. [Laughter]
Butler: Were
you involved at all in those types of studies at this time, or were
you still working primarily on the Thor?
Mettler: Once
I started at Thor, I was so involved in it, I did nothing else. We
went into 60-, 70-hour work weeks, Saturdays, Sunday. It was just
amazing what could be done with that kind of urgency. We received—the
Air Force received, and Ramo-Wooldridge received then, the system
engineering technical direction responsibility in December of '55.
By the end of the year, contracts were let, and while it was clear
that system engineering deals with the integration and making an efficient
integrated system, we did a broader kind of system engineering, because
knowing that we had a very, very crash program, we took a very conservative—for
example, separated the autopilot from the guidance system so it would
be possible to fly the vehicle even when it had no guidance system
yet.
One half of the engine that was planned for Atlas, which was to have
two barrels at 150,000 thrust, we took one of them, cannibalized from
that program, derated it to 135, to be on the conservative. Turned
out it did produce 150 and all that. We knew that with this kind of
a crash program we would need to be as conservative as we could, but
also very, very aggressive. The Air Force and the Defense Department
decided on what was then called concurrency, going immediately to
production drawings, even for the flight test vehicles. So that led
to a good thing, which was there were enough vehicles, test vehicles,
to have a very intensive flight test program, but it meant also that
there was a very, very short development period.
The sizing of the missile, I remember, with Douglas Aircraft [Company,
Inc.], with the Air Force, Ramo-Wooldridge, with the other contractors,
took place about six weeks after go-ahead. Based on the studies that
had been made in '55, rather than a whole new development program,
it was just rushed right into construction.
Butler: And
it all seemed to come together.
Mettler: Well,
it did, but there were some dramatic moments. We had the first Thor
missile on a pad read to test within a year, which is just astonishing.
Butler: That's
great.
Mettler: And
because of the crash program, there were no test facilities, so it
was necessary to use the launching facility as the test facility for
the propulsion system. That meant, then, that it had to be designed
in a way that could hold the missile down as it would in a test site
before launch, and that little issue, that little problem, became
a very, very important thing about a month later when the first flight
test—we had what we called flight readiness tests. Those were
just tests of the propulsion system.
When the first launch was really scheduled and ready to go, it was
on the pad, the launching structure had been designed to hold the
missile down, then release for launch. At that first launch, the missile
went up about eighteen inches, fell back, exploded, and blew up not
only itself, but the first launch pad.
Butler: Oh,
that's not good.
Mettler: That's
not good. We absolutely couldn't find anything wrong. I was in the
blockhouse. The Air Force leaders in the blockhouse. Lewis [G.] Dunn
was in the blockhouse. We were at countdown, countdown. Everything
was okay. There was no problem. The telemetry was perfect. But it
blew up. So all the pieces were taken, we laid them out. Every scrap
of film that anybody had was used.
And one day about—took about a month, we were looking at a film
and there was a Douglas aircraft technician, two of them, pulling
a liquid oxygen hose, with the back of it in the dirt. Even a few
grains of sand in a percussion, under pressure, in liquid oxygen can
be an explosion, and there was, because of the requirement that to
shift the fuel from a ground tank to what was in the missile itself,
there was a great big valve there, and that was reproduced after it
was tested and some sand was put in, an explosion was created. You
could then see that the pieces of the valve could only go together
if they had broken outwardly, and that led, then, to a conclusion
that what caused the failure was a fire and explosion of dirty—
[Laughter] Naturally, that changed the procedures. But after all that
work, all the work, it was a dumb thing. [Laughter] And luckily, the
next one flew.
Butler: You
learned lessons from the first one and were able to apply them.
Mettler: That
was kind of an exciting time. [Laughter]
Butler: A
very exciting time, overall.
Mettler: Now,
Si Ramo, who, among all of his other characteristics, has a fantastic
sense of humor, said, "Well, we've shown it can fly. The only
problem is, it has a 1,500-mile CEP [Circular Error Probable]."
[Laughter] It was aimed to go into a spot down range, which it never
got to. So we missed that.
Butler: Only
missed by 1,500.
Mettler: By
1,500 miles. Maybe he told you that story, I don't know.
Butler: He
mentioned it briefly. He did. So it's good to hear.
Mettler: I
saw it from the other end.
Butler: As
you were doing these programs and beginning to flight test the missiles
and having successes and failures, how much was the public aware of
what was going on? And if they were, what was their reaction, do you
recall?
Mettler: Generally,
I think the public was not aware of very much of what was going on.
Obviously, once the missiles got to the launch stage, the test stage,
and they were there, it was known. But in the earliest period, there
was pretty good security.
Ramo-Wooldridge, as Si may have mentioned, started in a barbershop,
chairs were moved out for office space. But then the next facility
was a Catholic church, and the pews and the choir loft were emptied.
The computer was put there, and that was the next office building.
And General Schriever, who was across the street in a building, had
his officers and his headquarters there. After a little while, there
was a question among some of the local residents, "Why are these
Air Force officers in civilian clothes cashing checks here?"
[Laughter] But it was not known what precisely they were doing. So
for, I'd say, probably for the first year and a half, until the launches
began, it was pretty well held.
Butler: As
the program began to move forward and as Sputnik was going up, and
then the Americans began to make efforts for launching our own satellite,
were you at all involved in discussions on that, on American response
to Sputnik?
Mettler: Yes,
yes. Our principal role, and my own principal participation, was really
on the question of the ballistic missiles as launch vehicles. That,
after all, is what we were doing. We also had some early opportunities,
when NASA [National Aeronautics and Space Administration] was just
beginning, to bid on some—TRW did. By that time it was TRW.
There was a merger between RW and Thompson Products, which was a Cleveland
[Ohio] company, [that] financed Si and Dean in the beginning of Ramo-Wooldridge.
There was an opportunity to be a contractor for the spacecraft, and
so one of the things that we did at Space Park was began the construction
of a spacecraft design and testing facility, which is about 200 yards
from where we're sitting here today, before we had any contract. There
was a gamble that it would be possible to win work, and we, indeed,
did. We won the design of what was called an Orbiting Geographical
Observatory, OGO, it was. And that then put TRW into the satellite
part, in addition to the boosters. I became the president of what
is now Space Park at that point, and I finished what I had been doing
on the boosters.
Butler: You
mentioned as NASA was beginning to form and that was when you began
to be involved in the satellite side of things. The formation of NASA,
did you expect that? Was it a surprise? Did you feel it was a logical
extension of the way the future of the space program should go?
Mettler: I
certainly felt it was a logical way to divide the program between
a civilian program that would be focused first on science objectives
and then on communication and other civilian-oriented from the military
program. By that time, the military had a substantial amount of effort
in surveillance systems, and I think it was simply very clear that
NASA couldn't—NASA made a very quick start, partly because of
the Sputnik and because of the general acceleration, the U.S. really
decided to demonstrate that our industrial system really could surpass
what the Soviets had. I don't know the exact number, but my memory
is that something of the order of perhaps—it must be a matter
of record—several hundred Air Force officers that had experience
in the ballistic missile program, and certainly some that had experience
in the Navy program, were secunded to NASA in various jobs. Turned
out that several of the senior TRW employees were hired and put into
jobs by Jim [James E.] Webb, who was a very effective NASA Administrator.
I think one can make the general point that without the launch vehicle
and without the industrial base—this is very important, the
fact that during the ballistic missile program, the largest and most
effective companies in the United States were contractors, so Boeing
[Airplane Company] and Rockwell [International] and Bell Labs [Bell
Telephone Laboratories] and General Electric [Corporation], so they
were there, having worked with the Air Force on the ballistic missile,
they were then there and ready to go as contractors for NASA when
the NASA programs, and particularly Apollo then, was able to turn
also to those contractors for support.
So I think my sense is that the impact was such that there would not
have been a space program of the kind that the U.S. had in the seventies,
just wouldn't have been, without the precursor of the ballistic missile
and particularly the leadership of General Schriever and, I'd say,
Si Ramo also. Schriever was an exceptional Air Force officer, a great
leader, and he cooperated totally with NASA and helped wherever he
could to get it going.
Butler: The
evolution of the relationship, I guess, between Ramo-Wooldridge and
the Air Force first, and then bringing in NASA and the Air Force,
then the contractors that you talked about, was that a comfortable
relationship? Did it evolve naturally?
Mettler: Well,
a very clear part of the arrangement that the Air Force had for ballistic
missile program was that Ramo-Wooldridge, and then TRW, in the role
of system engineer and technical direction, would do that and were
not allowed to bid on any hardware or any particular subsystems for
ballistic missiles, so that the objectivity of the system engineering
and technical direction could not be questioned in terms of any self-interest.
That arrangement, by the way, continued for another couple of decades
with TRW not bidding or participating in any way on any of the ballistic
missile hardware.
When NASA came along, TRW was eligible to bid, again not on the boost
vehicles, but on the spacecraft or on engineering generally. And that's
then when we were allowed to bid on things like OGO, and subsequently
became a contractor for Apollo, but for non-booster aspects of the
Apollo Program.
Butler: Looking
back on the boosters, NASA and the Air Force were working on bringing
up a manned space program and needed boosters to make it possible,
and so began to look at the Atlas and the Titan. As those discussions
were beginning, what were your thoughts about putting a person on
top of something that had been meant to explode?
Mettler: The
kind of thoughts you think at four o'clock in the morning. [Laughter]
Clearly—and the ballistic missiles, as you know, during the
test program had a number of failures. Thor did for a particular problem
in a turbo pump that destroyed a number of the test launches at the
end of the launch. The missile would take off and go, and go about
1,500 miles and then it would explode. So there were those failures,
and a very tough decision had to be made whether the flight test program
should be stopped, because it was clear that there was a need to redesign
that pump. It was a part of the Rockwell engine, and it would also
be the turbo pump that the ICBM would use. So very intensive program
was focused on that. But that certainly kept in our minds, going back
to your question, that reliability is important in any event, but
if those boosters were to be used, we knew they would be used to send
men into orbit, that we needed to double-check everything.
Now, it's true that by that time Thor, the Atlas, the Titan had all
had a record of successful flights, but even so, it was a difficult,
tough kind of a feeling. And as you know, luckily—I say luckily;
maybe it's more than luck—they were very successful in those
early flights, even though the astronauts then that rode those flights
were themselves knowledgeable and fully informed about what the gamble
was, and turned out that none of those boosters failed to do what
they were supposed to do.
Butler: Very
good thing.
Mettler: Excuse
me for a minute. [Brief interruption]
Butler: Were
you involved with taking the steps to ensure the reliability on these,
that they could be man-rated? Were there certain things that had to
be changed for the Atlas and the Titan, to ensure that they be safe?
Mettler: The
answer is yes, there were some things. By that time I was no longer
really working on the ballistic missile part of the program per se,
so I was not personally involved in the man rating, so to speak. Generally
those requirements went more to escape mechanisms, ways of testing
more thoroughly perhaps than previously was the case, reviewing everything
that was known about the ballistic missiles that failed, to get whatever
learning was possible. But I personally was not involved very deeply
in that.
Butler: How
did your role change and evolve with Ramo-Wooldridge and then into
TRW as the programs were progressing? You mentioned you started working
on the Thor.
Mettler: I
worked on the Thor, and when we were deep into the flight test program
and it was clear that it was going, I was asked to become the program
manager for Minuteman. Even though there was an Atlas and a Titan
being developed in parallel, with some common subsystems, the urgency
of the program and the importance and the difficulty, going back to
the beginning where it wasn't obvious that the technological advances
could be done as quickly as what was desired, so there were two parallel
programs.
The Atlas vehicle had, from a deployment point of view, some disadvantages
because of its propellants, which would then have to be maintained
in a military circumstance. Titan had propellants that were more stable
and then the solid propellant technology that went into the Minuteman
became the precursor for some of the large solid rockets that were
then developed for the Shuttle some years later. So I became the Minuteman
program manager for—gosh, I can't remember how many years. [Laughter]
For about eighteen months or so, to get it going, and then was asked
to be the chief project leader for the whole group, for Thor, Atlas,
Titan, which was a broader administrative management task, but no
longer directly responsible or applying my energies to one or another
of the missiles.
About that time, Lewis Dunn, who had been the president of the Guided
Missile Research Division, and the president of Space Technology Laboratories
[STL], had a health problem, and I was asked to become the president
of Space Technology. I did that and we went on into both NASA and
military satellites and spacecraft, then became a participant in the
Apollo Program, particularly for the landing vehicle.
One of the particular things that NASA needed to land on the moon
was a throttleable rocket engine. To that point, rocket engines started
and they went until the fuel—they were either shut off or they
went until the fuel was gone. Then the solids, there was no way of
shutting off the propellants, so they naturally had to just burn completely.
So TRW invented and developed a throttleable rocket engine, which
is what the astronauts used then when landing on the moon, to decelerate
their descent. As you may recall, in the first landing it was lucky
they were able to do it, because there was a big hole where they were
going to land. They were able to move sideways and then come down
using this throttleable engine.
But we were very delighted and excited as a contractor in the Apollo
Program. And a very exciting thing that is almost still emotional,
the astronauts came here and shook the hands of all of the people
that had been on that program. [Mettler has tears in eyes].
Butler: That's
wonderful. They really appreciated the work that you had done, that
they needed to be able to do their jobs.
Mettler: We
had the ad that said "The last 100 miles is on us." [Laughter]
Had an advertisement that was broadcast of that. And it worked.
Butler: It
did. It worked great.
Mettler: One
little incident. I don't know if you want these kinds of stories.
Butler: Certainly.
Absolutely.
Mettler: But
in about 1967 or '68, I hadn't gone, myself, to Cleveland yet at that
point. I was still here on the West Coast. I had a call from the chairman
of TRW. He said, "My God! We're responsible for this. The whole
world's going to be watching. Oh! Is it too late to get out?"
[Laughter] He was kind of kidding. "Is it too late to get out
of it?"
So the answer was, there was great apprehension everywhere. We had
it, but the astronauts, I'm certain, had it more, about whether they
could actually accomplish, and there was a question how would it be
when the blast out of the engines stirred up the moon dust, and could
they even see. It was just a complete adventure into new territory.
Butler: It
must have been so rewarding to see it work.
Mettler: It
was.
Butler: Do
you remember where you were when they landed?
Mettler: Oh,
I absolutely do. [Laughter] I know exactly where I was. I was in Cleveland
that day, and I was in a building and took an elevator down. There
was a woman in the elevator who was talking to a friend, and she says,
"You know, they say they're going to land on the moon. That's
ridiculous. That can't happen." [Laughter] That's what this lady
thought.
I went to where we lived. No point in being down at the Cape [Canaveral,
Florida]. We watched it on television.
Butler: And
it worked wonderfully.
Mettler: It
did.
Butler: In
fact, it even worked for Apollo 13. The engine was critical in that.
Mettler: Yes,
it was. It was.
Butler: Were
you involved with—
Mettler: Yes,
indeed. The minute that happened, we were on line continuously, and
anybody that knew anything in TRW about that engine or anything about
it was immediately available. We had a large group of engineers in
Houston [Texas] on a program that was designed, I think very wisely
designed, by NASA to try to anticipate things that might go wrong,
so that what if this occurs, what do you do? What if this occurs,
what do you do? What new software would be needed? Or whatever.
So that while no one anticipated Apollo 13, there was a background
there of several years of work at Houston, and we and other contractors—we
were not alone in this—worked on the "what if" questions.
And there's no question in my mind that that kind of preparatory information
and thinking helped the people who really made the decisions when
the Apollo 13 accident happened.
Butler: It
must have been good to see that all come to a successful conclusion,
getting back.
Mettler: Absolutely.
Butler: Going
back a little bit toward the early programs as the missions were progressing
for the Mercury, first was Alan [B.] Shepard [Jr.]. He actually went
up on a Redstone, and right after his launch, President [John F.]
Kennedy came out and said, "Hey, let's go to the moon by the
end of the decade. Let's do it safely, bring them then back to Earth,"
which then led to Apollo. What did you think when you heard that announcement,
that challenge?
Mettler: [Laughter]
My first thought was, this is a great thing, but at the moment it
seemed more like a clever political move than the real knowledge that
that could, in fact, be done in that time period. There's no question
that it was an acceleration and a stimulating and really, as it turned
out, a fantastic program, and it certainly had the result, it certainly
did result in this incredible Apollo Program, and it was in political
terms and in international U.S.-Soviet Union relationship terms, a
clear indication that not only was the missile gap reversed during
the fifties, but that the U.S. industrial system and technology and
system of governance, basically, was superior to what the Soviet Union
was able to do and, of course, as we know, they never were able to
do that.
So it had a huge political impact, I think, a foreign policy impact,
as well as simply the programmatic impact of actually putting someone
there successfully and bringing them back.
Butler: You
talked about the buildup of the programs and the importance of the
programs, and you talked a little bit about General Schriever and
Dr. Ramo. It seems that to have such a successful program come through,
and such a challenge to be able to go from not having any missiles,
ballistic missiles, and building that all up so quickly, that it really
took people that had a drive and a focus and energy like that. Can
you tell us some more about some of those folks?
Mettler: No
question at all that it took people all the way—I think General
Schriever, as I've mentioned, Si, who was the leader for those programs,
for Ramo-Wooldridge and then later, but also in the Pentagon and going
all the way to Eisenhower. He created the opportunity for us to have
priority access to virtually any type of materials or contracting
requirements, and a direct-line system was set up that changed the
way in which the Defense Department and the Air Force administered
their programs, a streamlined system that went directly from the Secretary
of Defense through the Air Force to Schriever, and there was a set
of special procedures put together. I remember they were called the
Gillette Procedures because a Mr. [Hyde] Gillette was the one that
developed them and got them approved, so that General Schriever then
had extraordinary authority for an officer on a program as distinguished
from other programs that the Air Force ran. So it was really top to
bottom.
What Schriever did couldn't have been done without the authority he
was given, which was rarely available, almost never previously available,
and, of course, Si and Ramo-Wooldridge and all the contractors couldn't
have done what was done without the kind of leadership that Schriever
had, because he was strong enough and clear enough at what he wanted
to do and how to do it, that the more senior people in the Air Force
had confidence, because, after all, they were giving him a huge amount
of authority. It was very extraordinary.
Butler: And
he did an extraordinary job with it.
Mettler: He
did.
Butler: As
the program progressed and the manned program continued, were you
able to go down and see some of these launches?
Mettler: Oh,
yes, absolutely. Many of them. [Laughter] I was in the blockhouse
on many, in the '56, '57, '58 time period, but also was able to go
down to the Cape and see the launches much later.
Butler: It
must have been interesting to see, having seen the launches first
as a flight test to get the missile active, and for such an important
part of national security and then to see them applied in such a different
way, but yet the space program itself must have had some impact for
national security as well.
Mettler: Yes,
indeed, and politically for foreign policy circles. I think it was
a clear demonstration, as I said earlier, of the American industrial
system that was noticed and known around the whole world. So it did
have broader implications.
But to your question, it was very exciting. [Laughter] And to know
what our hardware was going there and, of course, all of our contractors
knew that and felt that, I'm sure, not just we.
Butler: Exciting
to be a part of such a program.
Mettler: Yes.
Butler: Over
time, and as NASA grew, as TRW grew, and as the Air Force, how did
the relationships change and the involvements in the programs? Did
that continue to evolve?
Mettler: Yes,
because there was a change made in about—oh, gosh, roughly 1960
or '61, where, as I mentioned earlier, with TRW not being able to
bid on any of the ballistic missiles, there was then a continuation
of the system engineering and technical direction for what was called
the MX ballistic missile. It had the name Peacekeeper, which then
became the most advanced of the ballistic missiles in military service.
The Atlases were relieved of service. They were taken out of service.
And then the Titan. Minuteman and the MX became the principal—in
fact, the total ballistic missile force.
We continued that program relationship with the Air Force for the
MX system, and then in the early—oh, not early. In the middle
eighties, there was a competition to create a prime contractor as
a more efficient way of—what was thought to be a more efficient
way to coordinate the program, because at that time it was mature.
Then principal technologies had been developed and TRW was able to
bid on that contract and became the prime contractor for the MX missile,
and still is. So our relationship continued, but in different ways.
Butler: You
mentioned the MX and actually the Minuteman previously, as well, and
that the Minuteman was based on a solid fuel technology, whereas Atlas
and Titan had been liquid. It would almost seem a contrast of—or
actually to look at the contrast between differences and why was liquid
gone with first versus solid, and it would seem almost that a solid
approach would be a little easier in that there wouldn't be the turbo
pumps and intricacies of the engines and so forth. Can you touch on
that a little bit?
Mettler: Yes.
Well, clearly the rationale for Minuteman was precisely to the point
that you were making. It was much simpler, didn't have all that machinery,
was less expensive, could more easily be protected. The Minuteman,
from the beginning, was designed to rise up out of a silo, and it
was possible then to “harden” the silo as a tough, hard
target if anyone wanted to shoot at it. So that all the complexity
and expense of maintaining liquid oxygen in a military environment,
maintaining the liquid propellants for Titan, would become just plainly
too expensive if one wanted to really have a large force. So a decision
was made to focus on Minuteman.
But up to that point in time, before the beginning of the Minuteman
program, there was also a precursor period when intense set of analyses
and studies were made about whether it would be possible to go reliably
and effectively from small solid propellants, which at that point
were maybe that big around [Mettler gestures], to something big and
large. Again, the Air Force had a study program for—gosh, it
must have been a year or so. I remember Colonel [Edward N.] Hall,
who was a specialist in propulsion, led a study program for the feasibility
of a large ICBM-sized, so the reason that it wasn't earlier is that
technology just didn't exist for solid propellants in large sizes.
Solid propellants go back to the Chinese in a few centuries before
Christ, in tiny little sizes. [Laughter]
But again, the Minuteman required an advance, and that solid propellant
again created contractors who had the facility to do the large vehicles,
the first stage, the second stage, the third stage. The Minuteman
was a three-stage vehicle, which is more efficient than a one- or
two-stage, but it was three stages of solid propellant.
Butler: And
the solid propellants eventually continued to evolve and now are being
used with the Shuttle Program.
Mettler: Right,
and even bigger ones.
Butler: Even
bigger, yes. Looking back over your career with the ICBM program,
with TRW, involvement in the space program, what was the biggest challenge
for you?
Mettler: That's
hard to answer. [Laughter] I'm not sure. It seemed—well, clearly
I had the opportunity to go through and had a really exciting set
of jobs, from Thor to Minuteman, to the four of them, then become
the president of Space Technology Laboratories, then turned into TRW
Systems, kept changing names. And then in 1960, I guess it was, I
was invited to become president of TRW, went to Cleveland, and then
in '77 I was the CEO [Chief Executive Officer], and then I retired
in '88.
What was the most challenging? I think clearly the biggest step, I
think, was at the beginning, in terms of Thor. I was very young and
had never at that point—I had a period of program management
at Hughes, but I'd never had a project that had that urgency and that
crash aspect, and suddenly to be, overnight, almost, responsible for
something like that was certainly a very big challenge.
I guess the part of it after the first missile blew up was especially
challenging. [Laughter] But continuously I had the opportunity, which
I think was fortunate, to have larger and larger responsibility, being
CEO of a worldwide company. By that time we had operations all over
the world. I think it was in nineteen countries. But it was a continuation
of things that I thought I understood, and there was staff support.
So in many ways that was less difficult, less challenging than the
very beginning.
Butler: In
contrast to that, what would you consider your greatest accomplishment
or achievement or success?
Mettler: [Laughter]
I guess—well, I don't know. I don't know. I wasn't one that
sat around and worried about that or sat around and thought about
it. I didn't think of myself as working hard to advance in a career.
I just thought, well, if I can do what I'm doing and do it well, then
maybe someone will have me do something else. So I guess I'd have
to say that it was successfully completing a variety of different
types of jobs and functions from an engineer to a program manager,
to a leader of a small organization, to a leader of a bigger organization.
Butler: And
that certainly is challenging in and of itself, to move up and do
it successfully. When you first got started, would you have ever imagined
where your career would lead you?
Mettler: No,
not at all. I went to Stanford [University] in 1941 as a humanities
and history student, and I had an advisor, Rick Snyder, who was later
the registrar at Stanford. He said to be literate in this day and
age—that's 1941—to be literate in this day and age, you
should know something about science and engineering. So although my—they
had a program then called Independent Study, and the student could
elect to do that if the advisor would accept them. You were not required
to take the standard courses, but you had to take the standard exam.
So I had flexibility about what I could sign up for as a freshman,
and I took calculus and chemistry because that's what he advised.
When Pearl Harbor occurred that fall, that changed things completely,
and early in the following year I was still seventeen years old, but
I applied to the Navy. They said, "Well, we can't take you. Stay
where you are. We know where you are. We know when we want you. Just
stay right there." So I switched as much as I could to engineering
at Stanford.
Then about—oh, gosh, a year or so later, they said, "Now's
the time. Let's go." [Laughter] So I became an apprentice seaman
in the Navy, but I was selected for a training program, and we were
sent to Caltech [California Institute of Technology] for a short,
very intense technical program, and I kind of liked it. I thought,
well, there's nothing bad about science and engineering. So in a way,
I was an accidental engineer because I really was thinking of history
and humanities.
I was in the Navy for four years, and when the time came after the
two peace accomplishment, Europe and then Japan, I was ready to come
home, believe me, but I was tapped on the shoulder to go down to Bikini
[Atoll, Marshall Islands] as a part of the instrumentation team that
set up the instruments for the tests that were made. That took another
four or five or six months.
But it really, really had an enormous impact seeing those two, witnessing
those two explosions and the enormous effect certainly emphasized
the point that when the Soviets could duplicate that, when the Soviets
could duplicate even the nuclear weapon, which is even bigger, that
there was no doubt the U.S. needed, and would have, and should have,
a superior defense capability. So I can't say that seeing those blasts
from about twelve miles or thirteen miles, I guess—we left in
the morning on a fast boat and got out on a ship about twelve miles
away before it blew—I can't say that seeing those two blasts
is what motivated us, for example, on Thor or on the ballistic missile
program, but it didn't hurt.
Butler: How
did the threat of the Soviet response or the Soviet programs throughout
just the ballistic missiles and then even into the space program,
was that a driving factor? And how serious was that threat at that
time? How much did that impact your daily work?
Mettler: Clearly
it was a driving factor in our government, and so since we were a
defense contractor and we had other defense work other than ballistic
missile engineering and system engineering, and other than components
of the space program, clearly that was a driving factor, because our
customer in that regard—and TRW is a worldwide automotive manufacturer,
automotive components, and about 25, 30, 40 percent of the total of
TRW is the space and military component, so we had a customer that
was driving very intensively, as you know, to maintain a balance and
a defensive position and, if necessary, a standoff position with the
Soviet Union. So that clearly was an element. The rest of our business
was normal commercial manufacturing and engineering and distribution,
but there was a component through the whole time period, and still
exists today at TRW, about 30 percent of the company is in the military
and space program.
Butler: Purely
speculating, and just based on your experiences and thoughts, if the
American program, ICBM program and space program hadn't been able
to respond and build up and be successful in light of the Soviet threat,
how do you think that would have affected the later outcomes, and
where would we be today? Just speculating.
Mettler: Well,
it's hard to speculate, and certainly nobody knows, but a good example
is the Cuba situation. Consider the differences in 1962 if the Soviets
had the long-range ballistic missiles and the United States did not.
It wouldn't have been possible then for the President to do what he
did, because it was clear that since neither party obviously wanted
to be lobbing ballistic missiles with nuclear weapons, for God's sakes,
that the U.S. was able to defeat [Soviet Premier Nikita] Khrushchev's
idea of putting—well, he did—putting short-range ballistic
missiles into Cuba. Consider the difference in the political relationships
if they had missiles in Cuba and had long-range missiles and the U.S.
did not. You can certainly say, I think, without any question, the
circumstances would have been different.
Butler: Absolutely.
Things did progress forward, and Americans did have a response and
built up the programs. As the programs were building up, in fact,
and then moving into NASA, were you involved in working with the NASA
personnel? I know you said a lot of Air Force personnel did transfer
over to NASA, and TRW personnel. But were you involved at all in training
some other NASA personnel for like the launch facilities or anything
to that respect?
Mettler: I
personally, no, was not. Some of our employees were, but I wasn't.
I was deeply involved during that whole period from the middle fifties
to about 1970 or so in working with governmental groups in trying
to understand what the Soviets were doing, and in the middle fifties,
because the government itself really didn't have employees—the
CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] really didn't have employees or
the Air Force had a few that knew how missiles worked, we had what
was called an all-sources contract with the CIA set up here at Space
Park, a group of people who had designed and developed and had been
on the ballistic missile program, to intersect the telemetry programs
that the Soviets had. After they launched a vehicle, they would have
telemetry as the U.S. did, and that telemetry could be intercepted.
But not knowing what the codes were, the question was, okay, here
we have this telemetry program. What is this? It was possible then
for the engineers that actually worked on similar programs to say,
"That's got to be the record of a gyro," or, "This
has got to be something else."
So we were able then to monitor the Soviet launch program and provide
that information, and I was asked to be the chairman of what was called
a strategic intelligence panel for three or four years, providing—and
we did then assist the CIA in training and developing and in hiring
some people who were qualified, so they had an in-house group that
could do the work that we previously had done here.
Butler: With
that group, were you then able to observe their efforts for the space
program as well, and their lunar program?
Mettler: Yes,
but—the answer is yes, to observe, but we didn't have the same
role in that, what we had done was for the military program. So we
observed it, continued to work on advisory panels and groups that
were related to that, and would meet with NASA people when I could,
and be helpful, but we did not have an ongoing responsibility of that
kind.
Butler: Now,
of course, in current programs, the relationship between the United
States and what was the Soviet Union, now Russia, has completely changed.
In fact, there's now cooperation in the space program. In light of
your experience and your buildup, is that a surprising evolution or
does that seem a logical eventuality?
Mettler: I
don't regard it as surprising, because I think it was, in foreign
policy terms, an opportunity, after the breakdown of the Soviet system,
an opportunity to make common cause in something where one should
imagine the opportunity to have common objectives. So I think it was
useful and should turn out to be useful, even with its difficulties,
because, as we all know, their system is currently beat up and not
very effective. And they have not been able to carry out their obligations
on schedule and so forth, as you know better than I. But it was an
opportunity to work on something after the long Cold War that was
so difficult and so dangerous, I think, it was an opportunity then
to do something together. And I think it has helped in the relationship
between the two countries.
Butler: Speculating
for the future and looking at your experience as a contractor, but
working with both the military and NASA, how do you see the roles
evolving into the future as we do become a more global society and
then as NASA is branching out, the Space Shuttle, to USA [United Space
Alliance]? How do you see that changing, and what are your thoughts
on that?
Mettler: [Laughter]
I think I've learned that trying to predict the future is a loser's
game. I think over and over and over again we look backwards, we say,
"Look at all these changes that have occurred in the last fifteen
years. My goodness." Then we tend to project the future as a
continuation of the past, but when we look backwards two or three
years from now, it's going to be almost certain that what was predicted
was wrong.
I think it's clear that there are certain trends in the world that
are probably not changeable. I think the global economy is here and
it's going to stay. I think national security is going to be needed
in the current environment, in different form. I think it's clear
that the advancement of technology will continue. There's just an
explosion of new scientific results in biology, in materials, in physics.
And so what we should see, I think, and imagine and expect is continued
unexpected results, new inventions, new discoveries, and we need to
adopt a pattern, a mind-set, to anticipate change and recognize that
it's going to change and change and change, so that we can't sit on
our haunches and say, "Well, now we've got it made. Here we are."
I think we have to continue, as a country and as a company and as
individuals, to move forward in an exploratory way.
Butler: We'll
have to look forward to see what does happen. Is there anything that
we haven't covered that you would like to expand upon?
Mettler: No,
I think I've probably not answered your questions as well as they
could be answered.
Butler: No,
it's been fine.
Mettler: But
I do think that—I would say this. I really don't—the reason
I mentioned to Dan [Daniel S.] Goldin, when we had breakfast here
whatever it was, six weeks ago, that I felt General Schriever, who
is now in his high eighties, had just never, ever, in my opinion,
received the recognition that I would hope he would have for his role
as a foundation stone for the space program. He's well known for the
ballistic missile program.
So I would just say again that I think it's clear that without that
precursor of what the Air Force and Schriever did, we just wouldn't
have the space program that we have now. I guess I've said that before,
but—and so I'm hoping, and I know Dan is thinking about it—maybe
this shouldn't be on your tape—that NASA will give to Schriever
a Distinguished Award while he's still alive and still able to know
it, and for the country to know it.
Butler: Absolutely.
Well, he certainly has played a critical role, as you said, and that
is an important thing to emphasize. Absolutely.
I want to thank you for your time and information.
Mettler: You're
welcome.
[End
of Interview]