I would like to interpose a word of tribute to William T. Pecora. As Director of the U.S. Geological 
Survey, his foresight, planning and vigorous support more than that of any other man, were responsible for 
the success of ERTS. Bill Pecora died last Wednesday, four days before his bird was launched. 
The progress of science and the global scope of environmental and resource problems inevitably decree 
that we are all to live in an increasingly open world. Spacecraft are inherently global in operation and the 
capability of taking high resolution photographs any place in the world does give rise to questions of 
international legality and political sensitivity. We must believe that our statesmen will be as astute in solving 
these problems as our engineers are in solving the technological ones. Personally, I believe the public is ahead 
of the politicians in recognizing that the potential benefits of space photography far outweigh the possible 
problems. There is an increasing understanding that secrecy and national welfare are not necessarily 
synonymous. 
Because of my deep personal involvement in the programme, I cannot pass the opportunity to mention 
the Apollo flights. Regardless of what one may feel about lunar exploration as an objective, we did succeed in 
putting together the first truly photogrammetric space system. The lessons learned from that experience - 
particularly in the area of triangulation and data reduction - will, I believe, have great importance when high 
quality space photography eventually becomes available for the Earth. 
Develop the Science 
In 1885, the French scientist Poincare wrote: *'Science is built up with facts, as a house is built of stones. 
But a collection of facts is not more a science than a heap of stones is a house". That leads me to the second 
task facing photogrammetrists. Our cameras and sensors can be wondrously efficient in collecting facts. But 
unless we understand their significance, bald facts are liable to do us as much harm as good. 
A few weeks ago, the United States Secretary of the Interior announced: “After great deliberation and 
reflection, I have determined that it is in the national interest to grant a right-of-way permit for the 
Trans-Alaska pipeline from the North Slope to the southern port of Valdez”. You may well imagine that that 
decision was supported by volumes of facts. Now lay out any set of facts that would bear on the decision: the 
geologic structure, the distribution and thermal regime of permafrost, the migratory routes of caribou, the 
habits of other wildlife, salmon spawning patterns, characteristics of arctic vegetation, the cost of pipeline 
construction versus tankers, the population distribution, long-range and short-range climatological factors, etc., 
etc., etc. Say that every one of those factors is determined absolutely, then tell me how you are led inevitably 
to a single conclusion. It cannot be done. Clearly what is missing is the mathematical model - the science, if 
you will - that relates these facts. 
The same deficiency applies to dam construction, highway construction, power plant siting, urban 
development, mineral excavation - any problem involving ecological, environmental, technological, social, and 
economic factors. The point is that decision results are very sensitive to particular assumptions about highly 
uncertain and ill-defined relationships, and this uncertainty increases as we attempt to extend the models into 
the future. We simply do not know the significance of the facts that we can collect. I suggest that the 
development of these scientific relationships is a worthy challenge for any photogrammetrist - one indeed that 
cannot be solved without his contribution. Our welfare, in the words of Dr. Philip Handler, President of the 
National Academy of Sciences, “no longer rests on our natural resources. It rests on our brains, and on our 
application of scientific understanding”. 
Get Involved 
The third area in which I believe photogrammetrists need to become involved is the application of the 
information they provide. For years scientists and engineers have taken the attitude that their role is simply 
to provide information or technological capability. Academicians in their ivory towers have been content to 
provide knowledge, and leave the decisions on what should be done with that knowledge to elected officials 
who decide on national priorities. We are grateful to be able to say that scientists did not make the decision 
to send a man to the Moon rather than put up an Earth observing space station. Science did not decide to 
develop nuclear weapons rather than nuclear power. Certainly no attitude is better calculated to infuriate the 
young and to justify their contempt. The myth of the neutrality of science has long since foundered on the hard 
rock of evidence that both theories and applications of science have a continuing effect upon man’s welfare. 
Science and technology has provided the miracle of the loaves and fishes. Now we must make sure that that 
miracle extends to the proper use and distribution of the benefits. 
Increasingly, scientists are being called upon to advise policy makers - particularly at the interfac 
between environment and technology. We need to participate actively in those deliberations which will result 
28