>> rose: and the 40th anniversary soft "apollo" 11 with jeffrey kluger of "time" magazine. >> the numbers that buzz likes to use and that all three on the first landing used is 95%. they say they were 95% certain

that they could have gotten back. funly enough, i asked charlie duke recently from "apollo" 16, he knew neil as well as anyone could know neil armstrong and he said he's convinced that armstrong is telling the truth when he says it's one small step for man first words were not pre-planned. duke said he was such a pragmatist. unless there was 100% likelihood that he was going to recite those words, he wasn't going to waste any time planning them. >> rose: iraq and the lunar landing next.

captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: the mission in iraq is shifting from a military role to a civilian role. last month, u.s. combat troops withdrew from iraqi cities. all u.s. forces are expected to leave the country by the end of 2011. a high-profile bombing that raised questions about the readiness of the iraqi security forces and the government of prime minister maliki is under pressure to pass the hydrocarbon law and speed up its national reconciliation process. joining me now from washington is ambassador christopher hill. the new u.s. ambassador to iraq. he's the secretary of state and the lead negotiator in the space walks to end north korea's

nuclear program. i am pleased to have him back on this broadcast, the first time since he went to baghdad. thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> rose: so tell me how this is working out, the withdrawal of american troops to these bases outside of baghdad. >> first of all, i think it's working pretty well. this is on the basis of a security agreement that was reached in the ladder part of last year with the bush administration. so the dates for the withdrawal of u.s. forces from the cities and for the eventual withdrawal from u.s. forces in 2011, all those dates were approved by the bush administration. so what we're trying to do is implement this and we're turning over to the iraqis some key responsibilities in their cities and, you know, it's tough because you're turning over from a... the world's greatest fighting force, the united states, over to the iraqis who are certainly aspiring to do things right, but it's not going to be easy, but i think it's

going well. >> rose: are the iraqis of mixed minds about this? they want to see the united states go and at the same time they're worried they may not be ready? >> oh, i think there's an element of that because i they the iraqis are concerned about is security and we have spent a lot of time trying to train up these iraqi forces, work closely with them, make sure they react to situations that t way we do. and overall try to deal with the security. but meanwhile, the various insurgent groups, they want to somehow humiliate the iraqi forces, prove that they were incapable of doing it and then that would give rise to the recreation militias as they had a few years ago. so the iraqi forces have a lot of pressure on them. but i do believe the people want to see their own forces there. i do believe that iraqis, although they... they don't... they want to see us nearby but i do believe they want to see some

progress in having the iraqis really run their own security. >> rose: what is your role? >> well, my role is really to signal to the iraqi people that the united states is not leaving i mean, we're going to have a very serious, a very long-term relationship with iraq but it's not going to be a military relationship, it's going to be a civilian relationship as we have with numerous countries around the world. we're going to have exchange programs and education, we're going to have scientific programs, agriculture things. we're going to have a lot of different things. and what the iraqi people need to do is understand that even though our forces are leafing, we as civilians are not going to leave. we're going to have a very productive relationship. >> rose: at what time will you reach out to american businesses and say "come invest in iraq"? >> well, we're doing that, but the iraqis have got to do a few things themselves. for example, they've got to sort of clean up some of the macroeconomic environment there. they've got to look at the question of subsidies, things like this.

some of these actually pre-dated saddam. they were from a arab socialist time. and whereas in eastern europe and the is are all gone and very much changed, in iraq there are a lot of very bad economic habits from a long time ago. and i think foreign firms looking there, they first have to look at security, which is obviously getting better by the day, but they also have to look at whether this is a country that is really set up to play by international rules. and that's something else we're working with the iraqis on. >> rose: why can't they pass a hydrocarbon law? >> well, you know, people say this is a hydrocarbon law, it's just about oil. well, it's about oil the way moby dick is a story about a whale. i mean, there's a lot more going on here. it really has to do with the relationship of the center, baghdad, to the... to one of the federal entities of iraq, namely kurdistan. it has to do with how you share the proceeds of it, of the oil.

it has to do with how you organize yourself for the oil. do you have a national ministry, do you have a national oil company? and when you start looking at questions like that, you get into a lot of patronage issues loushg these things going to be staffed? it goes into the question of which oil fields do you try to invite foreign businesses in to exploit first? so there are a lot of different things and it's proven to be difficult, to get this hydrocarbons law done. and plus, i should add, we have elections in the kurdish regions coming up just next week from now, that's july 5. and also there will be national elections in iraq and as we even know from our own experience, sometimes it's tough to come through with good legislation with an election looming. >> rose: some speculation that the relationship with the kurds is at a very, very tinderbox level. >> well, i think the relationship with the kurds is a complex relationship. i think some of the statements

that we've heard out of you are beal, that is the cabal of the kurdistan area, some of those statements are not helpful. but i think they need to be understood in the context of an election that's coming up just next week in the kurdish regional government area. so i don't think we need to get too worried about those statements. i think what we need to worry about are some other things. for example, there's internal boundary question. that is where does this kurdish area end and where do these... does the rest of the country pick up? that is, where are the arab areas versus the kurdish areas. there's a u.n. process to set up to mediate this, but, you know, you're dealing with some very hard-headed people on all sides of the equation. so it's not easy for the u.n. and i think what the united states needs to do is to be very active here. but maybe not in the lead role. let's see how the uncan work this through. there's something like 14 different disputes along this line. anyone who's worked on bosnia or

places like that understands how this works and there's no real wholesale approach to it. you've got to do it retail. you've got to go through each of these 14 areas and see what the local communities are concerned about, is it security, is it that they don't like to see kurdish forces in air areas or don't like to see national central police forces in their area? so you've got to work this stuff. it takes time. i think we got the right process for it. but it's really going to take some time. >> rose: what about the relationship between the sunnis and the shi'a, the kind of sectarian warfare that ignited back in 2005 and 2006? >> well, you know, those were terrible times when you had some people being killed weekly. since those times, it's been a lot better. but it is still not easy and you have to work on the sort of reconciliation process everyday. now, this is something we t iraqis need to do, but it's

something that we need to taken a interest in, which is not the mean the u.s. should say we will solve your sectarian problems for you. but we can't just say, hey, these are your problems, leave us out of them. we've got to be engaged in a helpful way and that's what we're trying to do. now the good news, if you look at the iraqi politicians as they're getting ready for these january elections, they're looking at what sort of coalition do we need to win this election? and what you're seeing more and more of is the shiite, who are a... the majority of the people in iraq but still they can't win an election with just a pan shiite coalition, they need to reach out and get a kurdish partner and get a sunni partner. and i think that's kind of a good sign that they... all the major players realize they need partners from the sunni and the kurds. so there's a tendency in the sort of politics of this to try to reach out and get some votes from the other side.

and that's... that's a good sign. >> rose: what does prime minister maliki seek in washington? >> well, he's going to have a couple days, he's seeing some very senior people here starting of course, with our president. he's got an interest in showing that he's manage this u.s. relationship. he's got an interest in showing that even after the security agreement we're going to have this civilian relationship and is civilian relationship is going to be important for the iraqi people. the other day in baghdad i hosted a reception, a diplomatic reception in the middle of baghdad for iraqis who have studied in the u.s. in fact, there's one woman there who studied in 1952 at columbia university. and it really sort of highlights the fact that we've had these changes for many years and that it was interrupted by this very bleak and terrible period of saddam hussein.

and these things that i say are going forward, things like scientific exchanges, et cetera, it's all put together in something called a strategic framework agreement which was a sort of companion piece to the security agreement, the security agreement being the thing that under which the u.s. forces are leaving. so i think maliki wants to show that there's a civilian side to this relationship that's very important to the iraqi people. there's one other thing that he'll be doing. he's going to be going to arlington cemetery and he's going to be paying his respects to the many thousands of american soldiers who've died there. and i don't think that's a very good idea. >> rose: do that you believe the majority of people in iraq are glad that we came. >> i do, i do. >> rose: what's your evidence? >> well, you know, first of all, polling data shows that a

majority support... have supported our presence. but, you know, more sort of focus groups, if you will. i was down at a place called nasiriya the other day and i was meeting with students from a university called key tar university, which is the name of the province. and the thirst, hunger they have for more american involvement and they're asking me about... some of the kids were from law school and they're asking me account can we get some american lawyers down, talk to us about the u.s. legal system." we have a lot of lawyers dealing with iraqi judges and ministry types, but we haven't actually reached out to students and the desire of these law students to sort of see and touch americans was really telling. same with these kids who are learning english. they have never talked to an american... to a native speaker of english and they just wanted to get more from us. and i was very pleased that

within days of my trip there we were able to send some people to begin this relationship with a small university. and when you talk about contact, when you talk about reaching out to people, again, you've got to do it one person at a time, one mayor at a time, one student at a time, it's really... it takes time but we're going to get there. >> rose: is ayatollah sistani playing a positive role? >> he is, he is. he is a very revered shi'a cleric who has essentially... during the whole issue of american troops as they were negotiating the so-called security agreement he says american troops should be treated like guests. and anyone knows about arab society knows guests is the most exalted position. i mean, being a guest, it's not like your mother-in-law staying with you, it's a real guest. and so everyone knows that that

means lay off the troops. you know, this has been a tough situation. you know, the shi'a, who are by far the largest majority in iraq there are researchly no shi'a majority states in the middle east. so they're looking out at a sunni kuwait, at a sunni saudi arabia, sunni syria. i mean, these states that have never had a shi'a leadership. so iraq is.... >> rose: how about iran? >> well, there's the issue. the only other shi'a majority and shi'a-run state in the middle east right now is iran. and so what we don't want is a situation where the iraqis feel somehow that that's the only country will be supporting them. now, frankly, the iranians play a very negative role in iraq and they have not been respecting

their sovereignty and, frankly, when you look at some of the violence in the southern part of the country, i think you could put your finger on a very malevolent influence from the iranians. >> rose: why are they doing that? what do they hope to gain? >> well, you know, the trouble with the middle east is everyone thinks everyone else belongs to them. and i think the iranians feel that somehow if you look through the history of persia you see that iraq was... or a good part of iraq was under persia and they look at the fact that it's shi'a and they really think that somehow iraq should be a subservient state. that is, they're not respecting their sovereignty and certainly what the iranians fear about iraq is iraq's democracy. now, lord knows it's not a perfect democracy, it's got a long way to go, but let me tell you, the iraqis at least can run an election. so i think the iranians have a lot to be concerned about from

iraq's side. and, of course, the iranians are very much worried about their own internal problems. >> rose: i assume we've communicated to them to stop it, aren't we? >> i think the iranians are very well aware of our concerns about this malevolent influence. >> rose: my... i assume general petraeus told them, actually. stop it. >> i don't want to confirm any individual discussions, but i can assure you the iranians have been made well aware of our concerns. you know i.... >> rose: what are the consequences if they don't stop? >> well, i mean, you know, the iran wants a better relationship with us, with the world, there are a few things they've got to do, starting with the nuclear program. but also they've got to, i think play a more productive role in iraq. you know, iran and iraq need to have a good regulationship in the long run but it's got to be based on mutual respect. and those of us who live in the green zone occasionally get these 107 millimeter rockets coming in. in some cases coming right into

where we live, and they're all made in iran, we would sort of like to see the iranians do something about that. >> rose: speaking of that, you almost got killed theor day. how close was it? >> well, it was a... it was... well, you know, i was in a motorcade, we had six vehicles and unfortunately someone set off a roadside bomb and fortunately we were all okay and we drove through the smoke and went on about our business. >> rose: were you targeted for that or did they simply want to kill some americans and they saw this motorcade and they said "here goes, let's get this one"? >> hard... it's really hard to say, charlie. i know there's an ongoing investigation, things happen. all i can say is i've got some of the best security people in the world. they follow the best practices in the world and, you know, driving over to the studio about a half hour ago, some car cut in front of our... my taxi and i saw my whole life go before my eyes. so, you know, stuff happens. >> rose: (laughs) wait a minute. are you saying it's worse than

in washington than baghdad? >> defensive driving. but i will say some very bad things continue to happen in iraq and all i can say is we've got some really talented people dedicated to dealing with it. so much so that we're not curtailing what we do. in fact, we're getting out there meeting iraqis and trying to make it a better place. >> rose: a couple of last questions. one, al-sadr. moqtada al-sadr, what's the status of his own efforts to be the collaborator. either participate and be part of the solution or be part of the problem? >> he hasn't... i can't say he's been doing much participating. and, in fact, the sadrists, as they're called, have not been very hellful in the parliament there. so i think he's got a ways to go before he's a full participant. on the other hand, he just spent about a year or so studying to

be promoted in the system of shiite clerics, so maybe he was able to puck up some things in school there. this is a gay who really has not embraced a system that other people have embraced. and what we are trying to do and indeed, what the iraqis are trying to do, is to get more and more groups to embrace politics and put down their 107 millimeter rockets. and there's been a lotz lot of success, a lot of hard work on this and certainly a lot of the groups that were in the sadrist camp are very much in the political side now. the problem is, they're not being all that constructive. >> rose: and have the sunnis who were part of the awakening been absorbed into the government and are they being met with open arms? >> yeah, you know, that's been going well. these are... we're talking about sunni tribes in anbar province who tend to be very sort of rural type of sunnis and a lot

of the militias that were part of this sunni insurgency have actually switched sides and, of course, they're very much opposed to al qaeda-- and who wouldn't, because al qaeda is simply out to kill people and they don't really seem to care who. so i think the so-called awakening movement that you mentioned but also these militias who've been brought in and paid for by the government, that's going pretty well. i mean, it's not perfect. we sometimes hear that such and such a unit didn't get their pay last month. >> rose: or were shot. or were shot. >> or were shot, yeah, yeah. there've... you know, this is a place with people pick up a gun pretty quickly and where there's a lot of violence on a given day. again, you have to look at the trends. you have to look at what it was like a year ago, what it was like a month ago and i think overall the trends are in the right direction. >> rose: there are reports that there was some tension between american military leadership and

iraqi military leadership and that the americans were very concerned because the iraqis said "you can't leave the base until we tell you so. >> well, yeah. i've seen these reports. there are a couple of newspaper stories about them. you know, i'm... i'm sure some of these things have happened, but i can tell you, one thing that's very clear in the security agreement that we reached with the iraqis at the end of last year, that the bush administration reached with the iraqis, which is our guys have a right to defend themselves and they will defend themselves and no one can tell them they can't. so i'm not saying that there won't be disagreements, but we have worked very hard with the iraqis, we've worked very hard to have a common operations center. we've worked very hard to have transparencys so they know when we see a threat the iraqis see the same threat. we've worked very hard on sort of meshing this. and it's not easy and i'm not

saying there aren't problems and there won't be additional problems, but, again, i think it's in the right direction and i the fact that the troops are out of the cities is a very good sign, a good sign for iraq's ability to take over their own security and a good sign for our troops to come home and come home with a sense of a mission well done. so i think we're going to keep working this and i'm not saying we're not going to have a problem next tuesday or something like that, but we're going to keep at it. >> rose: and what happens if in this election next years there a referendum voted by the iraqi citizens saying "we want the americans out of here by the end of 2010, not 2011"? >> well, actually, according to the security agreement, they can have a referendum but they would have to notify us within a year and then a year later we would be out so if they had the referendum and the best that could happen, really, is... i

mean, people voting for that referendum is if we would be out when we said we're going to be out. so i don't think we have a problem now on the referendum. i think we're here according to security agreement. i think one thing that was very important for the iraqis is will the americans do what they said they'll do? and what was very important for us is to show the iraqis yes, indeed, we will. you want us out of baghdad, we agreed to be out of baghdad, we're out of baghdad. so i thinkhat made a deep impression in iraqi society, a very positive impression of all willingness to work with them as a sovereign and our willingness to show them this kind of respect. >> rose: so you're convinced that the vast majority of iraqis believe the united states is not there to stay and the united states is not there to take their oil? >> you know, if you look at opinion surveys, there are iraqis who believe that, but all we can do is to amass clear facts which will demonstrate the contrary. and i think increasingly and in

fact if you look at some of the recent opinions surveys, more iraqis believe that we are not planning to stay as a result of our moving out on june 30. so i think it is a process that is convincing iraqis of our good intentions. >> rose: when we say "move out," we're talking about military forces, aren't we? >> yes, we're talking about... actually we're talking about bad and mosul. the other areas we had already moved out of the urban areas. so people talk about june 30, but it wasn't something where you were seeing hundreds of tanks moving around. it was remaining forces in baghdad or remaining forces in mosul. now, those are two of the toughest areas. you know, baghdad is enormous and there are a lot of different group there is and mosul, as you know, is on that fault line between the kurdish lands and the sunni arab lands. so these are tough areas. but we did move out. the iraqi security forces have set up their own checkpoints and

doing their own patrolling and believe me, they've been taking some hits, they've been taking some casualties. it hasn't been easy at all for them. but, you know, they're going to learn. they're going to do a better job and i think they can handle the chore. and the reason i think they can handle the chore is, you know, the world's greatest fighting force, the u.s. military, is also turning out to be the world's greatest trainers and we have worked so hard with these guys and i think it's going to be okay. >> rose: finally this. tom freedman wrote a column the other day and he said "the big question for iraq is what kind of country do they want to be." i'm sure you saw that. how would you answer that? >> yeah, i heard he was in country. unfortunately he wasn't able to get to baghdad or to nasiriya where i was that day so i wasn't able to talk to him at all. but i think the iraqis do need to decide what they want to be. you know, there's a lot of talk about the kurds and whether they

want to stay. but, you know, frankly, the kurds already have a very autonomous region in the north. and then when you look in baghdad, you know, who constitutes the iraqi government? you may notice that the president of iraq is a kurd. you may notice that the foreign minister of iraq is a kurd. you may notice the deputy prime minister, the guy involve with a lot of this oil business, is a kurd. soverydy neeeeds toto geget aa bibit of a share of ths whole process. so they can't have a situation where it's winner take all. and so this is sometimes difficult. i know that prime minister maliki in putting together a government has to have people in his government who are from a different party and may not say all those nice things about him when he's not in the room. so it's a tough kind of democracy to put together, but i think that's what they want and we're hopeful they'll have the

tools to achieve it. i'll make one other point that iraq had a... they had some bids on some oil fields and one of the main oil fields whether went to a consortium of british petroleum and a chinese company. and if that works, iraq is going to be able to double their current oil production probably as much as double. and if they're able to do the remaining oil fields, they are going to be on a par maybe not up to saudi arabia but they're going to be moving up the line in terms of a country producing oil. and that gives them some real possibilitys to pay for services that their citizens need and to really kind of work on things. but the iraqis have had a problem over the years, indeed, over the centuries, of being isolated. so this time they've got to figure out how to reach some of those sunni neighbors, work with them and then reach out to the world, have good relations in europe, good relations with us. and i think if they can achieve this kind of

internationalization, they could have a very positive... they could be a very positive entity smack dab in the middle east. i think all politics should start with a map. and if you look at a map, iraq is right in the center. >> rose: are you convinced it was the right thing to do to invade iraq? >> well, charlie, i've got a lot of views on that but i'm not sure any of them is rally relevant right now. what i'm trying to do is make sure our relationship becomes civilized and make sure that our troops are able to leave on the schedule that we've agreed and i do believe that is... that we are on schedule. and i'll let historians decide whether this was the right thing to do. >> rose: north korea. what can you tell us about the son who might be the next president of north korea? >> well, you know, i don't do that account right now. i've passed the station wagon and moved on. >> rose: i'm not doing very good at getting you to tell me anything. >> but i can tell you that what is going on in north korea is

they have a domestic problem, a succession problem. they have kim jong il, who's definitely not kim jong well, he's kim jong very ill. and they're trying to deal with a very tough succession because he didn't make any plans for it. so we have this kind of odd situation of a sort of monarchy in a communist country that, frankly, isn't working. and i think the most important thing we have done and continue to do is to work with our partners. we are really flying in formation with the south koreans which i think is critical to the solution. we are working closely with the chinese and of course with the japanese. so i'm kind of hopeful that we've got the right policy and i'm hopeful that when the north koreans get through, this they get through this, they will see that we are unified and they're going to have to deal with us. >> rose: mr. ambassador, thank

you very much, a pleasure to see you again and have you on this program and hopefully next time in new york. >> thank you very much. >> rose: or baghdad. >> okay. any time. love to see you there. >> rose: we'll be right back. stay with us. now an excerpt from our web site about politico, which is all about politics. the interview is tomorrow night. here's an excerpt. health care, for example, is he going to get it done? >> i think most observers think there's a better-than-even chance that he'll get it done. i think people like max baucus want to get it done, the democrats on the hill have control majorities in theory want to get it done. >> i for one am very kept cal and i thought from day one that will define this presidency the first cup ol years will be this so called big bang theory of

taking a crisis, knowing people are uneasy and thinking you can do big things and a lot of things simultaneously. it looked and sounded brill yantd a couple months ago, it doesn't look and sound so brilliant when you're trying to do cap and trade, reregulation of the u.s. economy and health care reform simultaneously. it's difficult. congress has a hard time doing one thing at a time well and doing it efficiently. doing three things of this magnitude simultaneously when you only have a couple of months to do it is very difficult. and he's trying to do it now at a time where you really see the polls starting to shift. you see independents and moderate democrats each week that number is going up, people who are uneasy with trying to do so much so fast and spending so much money so quickly. >> rose: and they say... they're looking at what's happening to jobs and looking at... so you don't think he'll get it and certainly not get it by august 7. >> definitely not going to get it by august 7. does he get it rater in the year? i think it will be very hard. members of congress will go home in august. there's going to be millions of dollars targeting those moderate

and conservative democrats. those voters are already uneasy with the health care plan before it gets demagogued. imagine afterwards. it will be interesting to see their faces and their reactions when they come back to washington in september. if they're rattled, i think it will be very, very difficult for him to get anything that resembles the plan that he set out to get four or five months ago. >> rose: is the majority opinion that he should have delayed health care even though it has an imperative and that he should have delayed it and fixed the economy first? again, a majority... is it a growing opinion? >> we live in the moment at politico, i try to... at least have one foot not living in the moment. we're going to see it's brilliant if he does it. i don't quite agree with jim. with this congressional arithmetic-- and arithmetic is decisive-- they can get something if they call victory, even if the details change. and you're going to say this is never going to happen under any circumstances. >> rose: republicans are saying this is waterloo if he doesn't say this. >> democrats own the city. for better or worse they own the

city and we'll find out if it's for better or worse in succeeding elections. i think there will be health care and... i think to me the big question hovering over barack obama right now is what happened in 2006 when the democrats took back congress. 2008, huge majorities and a election. was that a reaction to bush or has this country fundamentally changed? and shifted on its axis, if you will? a and we're just a different ideological country that is a much bigger believer in government, much more similar to europe in our attitudes about the role of government and the private economy. my guess is that we have made that shift, but.... >> rose: you think we have made the shift to a different attitude about the role of government in the economy? >> in a very fundamental way. in a very fundamental way that we're not living in a reagan or a clinton era. in some ways obama is as far from clinton suzuki as he is about reagan. >> we have to save our arguments

for off camera. >> rose: why? >> i'll tell you, there's about 70 house democrats that hold seats that bush won in 2004. i think they would disagree with you. i think they don't think that the country has fundamentally shifted. they don't think that they want big deficits or quick, fast government action. >> rose: you say the country could fundamentally shift and not want big deficits, or not? let me rephrase the question. could off fundamental shift without having big deficit? >> i think the barometer that i'm looking are those conservative to moderate democrats because the republicans will never work with obama. they have no incentive to and they never are going to. those 70 people are still saying the country has not shifted. john could be right. he could be smarter and closer. >> rose: do you think so? >> these are legislators that can be bought, as they demonstrated on cap and trade. if you've got something like a majority you can say, hey, texas representative you can keep polluting in your district. i think they've got a fighting chance, which is remarkable. >> rose: 60 members have a

fighting chance? >> at best a fighting chance. but it's a big step if they do it. >> rose: in may of 1961 president john f. kennedy declared "i believe this nation should commit itself to the goal before this decade is out of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth." eight years later that mandate became a reality. today marks the 40th anniversary of "apollo" 11, the first man mission to land on the moop. the nasa crew included mission commander neil armstrong, command module pilot michael collins and lunar module pilot edwin "buzz" aldrin. on july 16, 1969, the astronauts blasted off from the kennedy space center in florida. four days later on july 0, 1969, armstrong and aldrin became the first humans to walk on the moon. >> that's one small step for man

one giant leap for mankind. >> rose: it's been estimated that 500 million people across the world watched the video broadcast of the moon landing. armstrong himself has said of the historic event "the important achievement of "apollo" was the demonstration that humanity is not forever change chained to this planet and our visions go rather farther than that." over the years i've spoken with a number of astronauts about their space experiences and here is a montage of them. >> i was standing on the surface looking up in the black sky at mother earth, planet earth, which is four times as large as the moon as we look at it. >> rose: that's amazing, four times as large. >> beautiful color, the blues of the ocean, the white icecaps, clouds, you can see the outlines of some of the continents. it was just an overwhelming sight. but the thing that struck me is that, hey, that place is kind of small. it's fragile. it's not as infinite as we think it is when we're down here on the earth. and then all of a sudden i

thought, well, now we have these people that are confronting each other politically and militarily all over the place. >> rose: screwing up the environment. >> and screwing up the environment. and what a shame it is that we're not taking care of the planet, the resources, and finding out about the environment. it was an emotional moment. i actually went a little bit. i hadn't expected to do that. >> rose: just overcome by...! >> yeah. >> rose: you're traveling 4.8... >> almost five miles a second. you're dealing with things but you train for this and you train right... so that you know everything there is to know about that vehicle and that craft. and i guess i would describe it not as fear but as apprehension. i've termed it constructive apprehension because you're focused and you're aware of every little shake that thing makes but you're also ready to do whatever is needed if something goes wrong. >> rose: what is weightlessness like? >> when you first get into it, it's a little different.

your head feels full like if you're leaning over a horizon bar when you're a kid, you used to do that. you can float around. your stomach is a little queasy. so people can take it, it takes a while to get used to it. after about six hours it's a very tranquil, a very lett tharj i can environment. people stay up there for years, it's coming back to earth that's so difficult. sdmup you give me any insight in terms of how you skojally prepared for the idea i might not come back. sdmup >> i was 23 years old as a second lieutenant and i didn't have a big support system. i was alone in that airplane. and they were out to get me. the other guys. that causes a person a lot more concern about not coming back when you see that last week someone didn't come back from the mission. we get used to those things, we see friends training pilots who

have accidents who don't survive. >> rose: joining me now is jeffrey kluger, senior writer for "time" magazine, i'm pleased to have him here. here's the cover story, july 27, "time" magazine, 40th anniversary of "apollo" 11. moon struck, a closeup look at the 24 men who made the voyage and how their lives were changed forever. let that's just an amazing idea. what did they have in common? >> well, i think they had a fair number of things in common. i think they had a level of imperer theability that those of us who have not done it can't begin to fathom. one of the things that made me first interested in n writing a book on "apollo" 13 was when i saw jim lovell many years after the accident on television talking about having the impulse to panic. and that's a question he's commonly asked "did you panic? did anyone in the spacecraft panic?" he said "i thought about panicking but then i decided not to because i didn't think it

would get me anywhere." and i was struck by the nonchalance with which he said he decided not to. pan sick a parasympathetic response. there's only a handful of people who can make it a voluntary response. >> rose: they're all good pilots. >> certainly. they were all good pilots and they were either test pilots or combat pilots. as that clip from buzz just showed there were a lot of men who risked their lives in combat other men who risked their lives in unproven vehicles which by the way is in some case taking a bigger chance. as one of folks i spoke to for the story pointed out, once you get those kind of men in a spacecraft, off self-selected group at that point because they've already learned to turn their normal responses into calculated and contained responses. i asked pete conrad once if he was nervous on the surface of the moon. again, not unlike the question you asked buzz, knowing that if

his engine didn't light he wasn't coming home. and he said "no, i was a happy guy on the surface of the moon." he said "i thought about that the first time i was in earth orbit and if my engine hadn't lit i'd be just as stranded and just as dead it only seems worse if i'm on the move." >> rose: what were the plans if the engines didn't work? >> they would quietly expire. >> rose: quietly? >> well, quietly expired. i would imagine these men would have gone up to the moment of death with the same kind of self-containment and dignity with which.... >> rose: but was there any plan of can i get back so we'll give you this pill to go to sleep? >> no, and it's funny you should say that because i opened "apollo" 13, the book jim and i collaborated on on the book "lost moon" which became "apollo 13" opened the book with just that question. the idea of poison pills. it was a very common rumor. the poison pills did not exist. and jim kind of laughed when i asked him and said "if you wanted to die in space, you

could do it faster just by opening a vent, you'd be dead in five seconds." >> rose: because of the climate? >> because it would be a sudden vacuum. the interior atmosphere would rush out into the vacuum outside and your blood would literally boil and you'd be dead in seconds. and he said "but we would have stayed alive as long as we could broadcasting back whatever data we could, that's our job, we were there and we would have done that job until the end of our ability to do that." >> rose: were they 100% certain they could get them back? >> the numbers that buzz likes to use and that all three on the first landing used is 95%. they say they were 95% certain that they could have gotten back. funly enough, i asked charlie duke recently from "apollo 16," he knew neil as well as anyone could know neil armstrong and he said he's convinced that armstrong is telling the truth when he says it's one small step for man first words were not pre-planned. duke said he was such a prague

ma technical assistance. unless there was a 100% likelihood that he was going to be able to recite those words he wasn't going to waste any time planning them. he had a fixed amount of time to work and a whole lot of things to do and this was a task that didn't need to be don until he needed to do it. >> rose: when you spoke of him you said as much as anybody could get to know neil. what did you mean? >> neil armstrong is... the word that's least fairly used to describe neil armstrong is "reclusive." he's not reclusive. he's exceedingly quiet. he's a man who's exceedingly mission oriented and work oriented. there's a wonderful story the astronauts tell about when he was flying the l.l.t.v., the lunar landing training vehicle which basically looked like a giant flying box spring with four legs. it was a monstrously dangerous machine and they would take it up to a thousand feet and play with it and land and that was a lunar lander trainer. and his... this is about a year before he went to the moon. the l.l.t.v. spun out of control neil had to eject, he didn't

have much clearance above the ground. he ejected, the l.l.t.v. crashed he parachuted down safely next to it and when people next saw him an hour later, he was at his desk getting his paperwork done. nothing rustled neil. >> rose: is that why he was choseen? >> that's one of the reasons he was chosen. he was chosen also-- and this is what chris craft, one of the great lions of nasa will tell you-- he was also chosen because that's where the rotation was. he said, you know, no slur on any of the pilots who flew any missions. >> rose: anybody could have gone up the rotation? >> the rotation came up, if "apollo 11" hadn't worked pete conrad would have been the first man on the moon. if "apollo 12" hadn't worked, al shepherd would have been first and he and "apollo 13 13-" later switch because shepherd needed more training time. so whoever was next in line would have been the first. >> rose: is there one first among equals? >> i asked chris craft that. if you ask me i would say jim lovell. i'm biased. jim and i have worked together.

>> rose: "apollo 13" "gemini 7." >> rose: tom hanks. >> exactly. jim was and still is a fantastic rudder and stick man. frank boorman, commander of "apollo 8" was considered a true genius in terms of his natural feel. he was a caution astronaut but a terrifically adept one. but chris craft, when i asked him that question, i said "who is the best pure pilot who ever flew under your xand?" and he said "i'm not trying to give you the appropriate answer. i always said the best crew that's flying is the best that's... that's ever flown is the one that's currently flying because they have built on the achievements of every other crew before them and the next one will be better than they are. >> rose: somebody wrote-- maybe you-- that as good as they were in mechanically getting up there and back in terms of all the skills of pilots and all the skills they had learned that it

wasn't inevitable about them that they would not be leer kl. >> that's right. jack swigert pointed that out. anybody who listened to those tapes and heard those transcripts know that. here you have men looking at the first moon at the... the first look at the moon. and the words coming out of their mouths are "amazing, fantastic." well, it is, but the large majority of people would have something that was somewhat more leer kl to say. that's why buzz's first description, that wonderful oxymoron "magnificent desolation" a brilliant piece of word play that came out of his mouth spontaneously. but jag swigert pointed out you didn't get many people saying that because the very thing that qualified them go to the moon, clinical engineers, detachment from what they were doing, disqualified them from speaking about it very poetically.

if you can stand back and you can muster the internal appreciation for what you're doing to speak about it poetically, you'll get overwhelmed by the enormity of what you're doing. >> rose: how would it have been coming back? is it difficult to adjust? >> at some levels it's difficult for all of them. lovell, who is to my experience the one i know best and the one who has adjusted the most easily even tse said "the spotlight goes off, it's a little challenging." the psychologist i spoke to when i was reporting this story said "look, you have people who are terrifically competitive, they are terrifically mission oriented and then the mission ends and the there's a real sense almost of grieving. almost of that kind of process of loss." it's no coincidence, i think, that a good number of them-- five of them-- went into politics. lovell declined but he was given a... hard pressed by the

republican national committee of his time to run for the senate. but five of them did run because you have that same kind of ferocious competitiveness building up to açó single signature event and election instead of a liftoff. and, you know, it gave them that same kind of thrill. now, governing once you're electd is a lot less exciting than flying a spacecraft to the moon. >> rose: alan bean became a painter. >> alan bean became a painter and bean was... always was an artist before he flew. i suspect that if alan bean had not flown to the moon and later got a little aperitif taste of it again when he flew sky lab, i have a feeling alan bean would have never become a painter because as a flier he always would have wanted to be achieving that next thing. he always would have been wanting to get that adventure itch scratched. once you've been to the moon and command add sky lab mission, you have had that itch scratched and i think that gave him a

competitive man like him, the piece and sense of satisfaction to say "now i can go and pursue the gentler part of myself." >> rose: what can you say about the space program today? >> well, the space program today is in the same flux it's been in for the last 40 years, unfortunately. the augustine commission appointed by president obama is bringing back their recommendations for the future of particularly the lunar program, the manned program in august. if nasa does this right, i believe we are closer to getting back to the moon, which i believe is a good idea. closer to getting back to the moon than we've been in a long, long time. than we've been since the 1980s. >> rose: why should we go back? >> i think we should go back for a few reasons. i think there are scientific reasons to go back. i think going back does... could pay dividends in terms of cosmology and exploration and as a training ground for betting back to mars, or getting on to

mars, but the answer that you can't give before a senate committee but i love to give is that... because that's what we do. we're an idiosyncratic often irrational species that gets our greatest satisfaction from the things that make no intuitive sense. dance has no survival value, music has no survival value, art has no survival value, nor do beautiful buildings. we could build slabs if we wanted. but smog about a magnificent piece of art rising 70 stories high that also has function fills with us this sense that we're capable of great things and that we're never going to die. i think that's what travel to another world does. you get there, you think "i as an individual may be finite but i'm a member of this species that's capable of these magnificent pageant-like events" and that's a good thing. >> rose: someone said-- and you'll probably know who it was-- why do you climb mountains? because they're there. >> because they're there,

exactly. and once you've done it, you realize this insurmountable thing turned out to be surmountable. what does that not let you feel that you can do if you've surmounted this you can surmount anything. and i think that's the biggest reason we go. now, it's hard to tell a funding committee that, but i think in our hearts if we were being candid we would acknowledge there's scientific dividends, there are political dividends but there's also spiritual dividends and they are probably more valuable than any of the others. >> rose: spiritual dividends? >> spiritual dividends in that sense. and i don't mean in terms of organized religion, although a few astronauts have come back spiritually awakened. but when i say "spiritual" i just mean in a sense, they give you a sense there''s a larger universe beyond us and we're capable of getting that perspective. and the al shepherd tape you played, jim lovell talks about this, you look back on the earth you see this infinitely destructible thing that just floats in this fantastically

hostile environment of space. unless you've been there, you don't get a sense of how fragile and how perfect the earth is and how easily it can be broken. you don't get a sense of how small it is. you don't get a sense of how everything that ever happened in human history is contained on that tiny blue dot. you go to space, you get that. >> rose: president obama's is said to be reconsidered everything. >> he is reconsidering everything, yes. and my concern is that he will reconsider to the point of unplugging it. i have a feeling, if i were predicting, i have a feeling what we will do will be to continue a lunar program. there's a very pragmatic reason. it is a huge job creator. when they began... when they put out help wanted calls for the new constellation spacecraft or the new orion orbiter there were 600 spots and i think it was lockheed, i forget the name of

which contractor is doing it, they got 30,000 applications for 600 spots. it's a big stimulus to that part of private industry. and i think that's important. i suspect president obama will scale down the cost a little bit go with existing boosters repurposed for human flight as opposed to building new boosters. i think we'll still go. >> rose: so when will we go to mars? >> well, mars... dave scott speaking today in washington, the commander of "apollo 15." he said "the problem with that is it cost roughly two jill i don't know dollars. the jill i don't know was his figure. it is very expensive and an order of magnitude harder than going to the moon. but if we can get back to the moon by 2020 and i see no reason why we can't get back to the moon by 020 if we simply choose to, go i think we could be on mars by 030, 2032. it's not all that for away. >> rose: thank you for coming. >> thank you for having me. >> rose: "time" magazine, jeff kluger, 40th aber have air is of

"apollo 11." a closeup look at the 24 men. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org