INTERVIEW WITH AN ASTRONAUT

MOST people dream of walking on the moon. But if this dream cannot be achieved, it would then suffice to talk to one of the 12 men who did.
So when ex-National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Nasa) astronaut Charles Pete Conrad Jr - the third man to walk on the moon – was in Kuala Lumpur recently in his capacity as staff vice president in charge of new business at the McDonnell Douglas Space Systems Co, Business Times took the opportunity to talk to him about his "moonwalk".
"You are not the first person who asked me this question. A lot of people had come to me and ask if I had really walked on the moon."
"Let me tell you a story. About 15 years ago, there were some engineers who had written a book saying that we did not walk on the moon. These pictures had no stars in the background and the writers said we hid in the desert and took the pictures there instead.
"When the book was published, a reporter called me up one day to confirm whether I did walk on the moon. He said his editor also asked him to call the other 11 astronauts.
"I told him I didn't know and before I could finished my sentence, I could sense that he (the reporter) felt as if he had won the Pulitzer Prize with the story.
"I told him that if I didn't go to the moon, Nasa had done a really outstanding job faking it though I was there," he reminisced.
Conrad was the commander of the Apollo 12 - mankind's second voyage to the moon - in 1968. During the mission, he spent seven hours and 45 minutes on the lunar surface exploring the "ocean of the storms" region during the mission.
When asked if going to the moon was his highest life achievement, Conrad - in typical American sense of humour - answered: "You have got to realize that I spent seven years eating, sleeping and breathing (about space) and when I got there, it was the right place to be at that time.
"I've never looked back. It was a great achievement as far as I was concerned but I didn't feel as strongly about my flight to the moon as I did on my last flight when I commanded the first space station, Skylab, in 1973.
"The most personal time I had in space was when we salvaged the Skylab. It was damaged when we were put into orbit by the last Saturn V," he added.
During his 11 years' tenure as a Nasa astronaut beginning in 1962, he scored several new records. He established a new space endurance record of 190 hours for the Gemini V mission in 1965, new space altitude record for the Gemini XI mission and new space mission endurance record of 672 hours of the Skylab 1 in 1973.
The only souvenirs he kept from his "moonwalk" days were the flag, name and Nasa tags on his space suit. The space suit, however, is now the property of the Smithsonian Institute.
The moon rocks, some of which dates 4.3 billion years, are also kept at the institute and available for destructive and non-destructive testings, he added.
Conrad left Nasa from McDonnell Douglas after establishing an individual space endurance record of 1,179 hours, including 14 hours and 19 minutes of extra vehicular activities.
For his services, he was awarded the Congressional Space Medal of Honour, two Nasa distinguished service medals, two US Navy Astronaut Wings and Distinguished Flying Cross, two US Navy Distinguished Service medals, the American Astronautical Society Flight Achievement Award for 1966, FAI Yuri Gagarin Gold Medal and Dela Vaulx Medal (1970 and 1974). He is also enshrined in the Avaition Hall of Fame in 1980.
He may left Nasa but is still involved in McDonnell Douglas' space programmes. "I stick my nose in a little bit of everything," he said.
McDonnell Douglas, which is the largest contractor on the US space station programme called Space Station Freedom, is currently working with three other contractors on a single stage orbit vehicle which takes off and lands vertically unlike the present Discovery which takes off vertically and lands horizontally.
The vehicle, he hopes, will become the "DC-3 of Space". "The DC-3 is the cheapest ever commercial aircraft. This is what we need for space travel and exploration ... a vehicle which can take us to space over and over again.
"A first-class round ticket around the world can possibly buy you eight to 10 hours in orbit. It enables you to see the world in the daylight.
As such, the idea of making return trips to the moon and space tourism becomes viable.
"If we can bring down the launch cost in the US$5 million (US$1 =RM2.60) category and if people know they can be launched into space at any time, I cannot imagine the amount of people coming out for commercial and business purposes.
It happened with the aircraft being introduced and it will be the same for spacecraft when we hit the economic combination," he said.
The Challenger incident in 1986, when the Nasa's fourth spacecraft exploded 73 seconds after takeoff killing all seven crew members, including teacher Sally Ride, may put people off any space programmes but Conrad is determined to make McDonnell Douglas' single stage orbiter works.
"We are working on a more reliable space vehicle. Whether the vehicle is carrying man or cargo, that is not important.
"The important thing is for us to get the vehicle back," he said.
Conrad said it was unfortunate that he political parties in the US were not supportive of the American President George Bush's plans called Space Exploration Initiative (SEI) and the Home Planet earth.
(The SEI is a programme which will see return trips to the moon and subsequently, inhabitants on the moon. The programme extends itself to include Mars which is the next closest planet to consider going to.
(The Home Planet Earth programme entails the use of satellites to understand more about the environment and what is happening to Earth.)
He said little progress has been made on the two programmes. "We hope that President-Elect Bill Clinton and Vice-President-Elect Al Gore will be more supportive of the programme.
"Gore, as a senator, was a member of the Senate Committee on Space. He is very familiar with the programmes. He is also every much an environmentalist and he knows that technological advancements can help us with our problems.
"We do not expect them to back the SEI as much as the Home Planet Earth. There is a need to put up smaller satellites to monitor the depletion of the ozone layer and pollution.
"A single stage orbit vehicle makes this easier to do. We really need a cheaper way of doing it, too," he said.
Conrad said McDonnell Douglas' single stage atmospheric vehicle will be ready by April 1993. Testings will take place at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.
Following these, the first prototype will be ready in 1996 while the operational vehicle will be completed in 1998. "No, I have no intentions of going back to the moon. There are many other interesting things happening now and I will like to enjoy them before I cash them in. For starters, I want to test fly the prototype vehicle," he said.
For a man who already has achieved the dream (of walking on the moon), he is easily satisfied.

This article first appeared in the Business Times on January 18, 1993.

"Our destinies are interlinked"

SINGAPORE turned 42 on Thursday. In his National Day address, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong painted a rosy picture of Singapore's future, revising its full-year growth forecast from 5-7 per cent to 7-8 per cent. In an interview with visiting Asean journalists at the Istana, Lee spoke on, among others, the republic's relationship with Malaysia and its role as a foreign investor, FAUZIAH ISMAIL reports.

Q: How would you describe Malaysia-Singapore relations now under the Abdullah administration?
A: I think it is good.

Q: What areas do you want to see improve?
A: We would like to work on a win-win basis but this depends on both countries identifying areas that we can co-operate.
The private sector moves ahead. They find their own opportunities and, provided that the relationships are amicable and we don't have thunder and lightning, they know what they need to do.
In terms of government-to-government co-operation, we have got to find areas where both sides find it worthwhile to proceed.
In the Iskandar Development Region, for example, we have the joint ministerial committee working on the issues. Even then, when we set up the joint ministerial committee, there were some reactions within Malaysia.
Our attitude is, it is entirely up to Malaysia. We want a win-win situation but we don't want to be misunderstood.
We will proceed at the pace Malaysia is comfortable with. We will let the Malaysian side take the lead. This is a practical arrangement.
In other areas, we will proceed like that, too. Otherwise, if we push too hard, there might be some misinterpretation.

Q: What outstanding issues do you wish to see resolved under your administration?
A: I don't see any specific items I urgently want settled. There are outstanding issues, which have not yet been resolved but have been discussed twice.
The first was in a package proposal between (then prime minister) Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and (then Singapore prime minister) Goh Chok Tong, and that was not possible.
The second time was when Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi took over. Goh and Abdullah tried again to come to an agreement and harvest some low-hanging fruit, but the fruit was not ripe.
I think it is best that we put these matters aside. Where we can agree, we do it on new areas of co-operation. As for the old issues, we just let it be. If they have to be resolved, we'll go according to the law and treaties because that is non-contentious.
Both sides can accept it and it doesn't lead to any loss of face.
It is not easy. If it were easy, they would have been solved already.
I don't see myself being able to do better than Goh, and I don't think it would be easier for Abdullah to do better than Dr Mahathir.
What Dr Mahathir could not give, Abdullah cannot give. Otherwise, he would be asked why he gave away more and I would be asked why I gave what Goh did not give.
It is better if we settle it according to the law and the treaties.
For example, when we had the dispute over Singapore's reclamation works and Malaysia raised some issues, you took us to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Hamburg. You presented your case and we presented ours. A ruling was made and we both abide by it. It was not politically sensitive any more.
That is a good model. The Pedra Branca (Pulau Batu Putih) claim is before the International Court of Justice in The Hague that is coming up in November. Whichever way it comes out, I hope we will accept it.
This is the way disagreements ought to be resolved. It would crop up from time to time between close neighbours, and because it is between close neighbours, it has to be handled particularly carefully.

Q: Do you see Singaporean investments in Iskandar Development Region as politically sensitive?
A: I would ask Malaysia whether they see our investments as politically sensitive.
Abdullah has made it clear to me that he welcomes our investments. Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has also made his position quite clear. So has Menteri Besar Datuk Abdul Ghani Othman.
But, of course, on the ground there are other views. Pas has some strong views; even Umno Johor has some outspoken views in print and in parliament. These are things I'm quite sure investors would take into account.
So it is not a question of whether the governments see that this is going to be politicised. The question is whether investors see this as an opportunity that is good and whether they are going to be welcomed. That I think is the important question to ask.
To be welcomed not just now but over a period of 20 to 30 years because once you have put in a factory, built up the capability, your plant is there, your people have been recruited, you don't want to quit within a short period of time. You want it to succeed. You want a predictable environment in which to work.
That is something Singapore has tried to do with investments. When we promise the investor something, we try very hard to fulfil that promise. Even if the situation changes, we will do it.

Q: What lessons did Singapore learn from the Shin Corp deal?
A: From our point of view, this is a commercial deal. Temasek makes its decisions based on commercial considerations. It operates independently although the Singapore government owns it. It has a board that is fully responsible. When it invests, whether in Singapore or elsewhere, it has to invest fully in accordance with the laws of the land and the stock exchange, which is what it believes it did in Shin Corp.
It became an issue in Thailand. It was something that had to be sorted out.
The philosophy is that Singapore companies invest based on commercial considerations and invest because they believe in the long-term prospects of the country and have confidence in the country.
If you don't have confidence in the country, you don't go in. But if you do have confidence and the environment is a welcoming one, you go in and you invest.
If the investment prospers, it will be good for the company and also for the country.
I think that is the philosophy that Temasek has and we encourage all Singapore companies to take. In the case of Shin Corp, I think it got caught up in the domestic politics of Thailand.

Q: Would you advise Singaporean companies to avoid investing in politically unpopular countries?
A: Companies will make their own decisions. If they think they are not going to be welcomed and it's going to cause a row, they will have to take that into their calculations.
They will have to decide whether it would be worth their while to do it. I would not advise anybody to go in if it is going to cause a big rumpus.
On the other hand, if we take the approach that we don't want to invest in one another because it may become controversial, then we would have an Asean with no economic integration, interdependence or co-operation.
That is contrary to the Asean economic community that we are hoping to build by 2015.
Singapore is open. We have investments by Malaysian companies. You owned one of our cellular companies, M1. You have invested in all sorts of things such as properties in Singapore. We welcome you.
Similarly, we have quite a lot of investments in Malaysia. Sometimes issues have come up, sometimes not.
I think it's good that Singapore and Malaysia have investments in each other because then our destinies are interlinked. We wish you well because we want our investments to do well. I think you have an interest in us doing well, so that your investments will not run into trouble.
I think that is the way we have to go. Sometimes it is politically sensitive. This is something countries will have to manage.
But the more we are able to have this interdependence, I think the better it is.

Q: After 42 years of independence, what challenges do you foresee for Singapore?
A: It depends on the timeframe.
In the long term, our biggest challenge is to keep our identity and national spirit in a very globalised world. We speak English, sing English songs, browse the Internet and travel the world but home is Singapore.
This is something we have to do a lot of work to maintain.
In the medium term, a major challenge is to ensure we have political renewal. We have to continue to have good leaders who have the confidence of the people, who will take the country forward. It would be at all levels, from the members of parliament, ministers, the community, at the grassroots and people who feel for Singapore and have the capability to do something.
In the medium to shorter term, the challenge for us is to continue to grow but, at the same time, to manage the income gap. If the top moves forward but the rest stagnates, that would create many social problems.
This means we are not taking care of our population. Everybody wants to participate and benefit from Singapore's success and we should help them do so.
We have a lot of work to do.

As appeared in the New Sunday Times August 12 2007