Return to Transcripts main page

Next@CNN

NASA Searches for Answers; Interview With Garry Kasparov; Breaking Ice in Antarctica

Aired February 08, 2003 - 14:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


ANNOUNCER: Coming up on NEXT&CNN, a heightened terror alert. Rumblings of war. And NASA's search for answers. We'll look at the high tech side of the news.
Also, chess master versus machine. A live interview with Garry Kasparov about last night's match.

And breaking the ice in Antarctica. All that and more on NEXT.

RENAY SAN MIGUEL, HOST: Hello, everyone, and welcome to NEXT@CNN, live from CNN headquarters in Atlanta. I'm Renay San Miguel.

One day after the White House upped the risk level to code orange, the second highest degree of alert, a few big events are getting special attention this weekend. CNN's Mike Brooks joins us live. Tomorrow's NBA All-Star game is at Phillips Arena, right next door to us here at CNN Center, so Mike, what is the game plan for safety tomorrow?

MIKE BROOKS, CNN SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Good afternoon, Renay. Tomorrow evening, this hall will be full of thousands of people making their way down towards Phillips Arena to go to the NBA All-Star game.

Now, the threat level has gone to high, to the orange level now. So what does that mean? Yesterday, we spoke with Commissioner David Stern about the threat level being raised for the NBA All-Star game.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID STERN, NBA COMMISSIONER: I'm actually glad or sad to say that we plan the security for this event with the impending prospect of a war at the orange level. And so our security is very much in place, and the All-Star activities are going forward.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROOKS: As people make their way to Phillips Arena tomorrow, they'll be encountering a lot of different security measures. With us live here at CNN Center is...

(AUDIO GAP)

BERNARD TOLBERT, NBA SECURITY: My pleasure, mike. BROOKS: What kind of technology will play in to making sure that this will be a secure game in front of 3.1 billion people in over 212 countries?

TOLBERT: Well, we will be using a number of technological means to help ensure the safety of the game. We're going to be wanding patrons as they come to the game. There'll be magnetometers in place that people will have to pass through. Bags will be searched. Of course, that's not technology, it relies on humans, but we're going to be searching bags.

We also have the arena itself has cameras throughout the arena, and we'll be relying on to help us pinpoint if there is a problem, we can focus in on it, get people there to resolve the problem very quickly.

Also, on our tickets, we are using bar code technology so that someone who may have some ill intent can't just make up a ticket and get in. All of that is designed to help us ensure the safety of this game.

And one other thing, while it's not a technical, state-of-the-art technology, we have an awful lot of human eyes. We are going to be relying on a lot of people in place.

BROOKS: So you're talking about magnetometers, hand-wanding people, technology for ticket fraud. We're also talking about technology camera systems. How extensive is the camera system here at Phillips Arena?

TOLBERT: Well, it is rather extensive. It allows the security, the security command center to be able to focus in on any area of the bowl as well as the back of the house that we can see if there is a problem if there is an issue someplace. Gets a camera on it, help us to resolve the issue, we record it, if necessary, for whatever purpose you may need it for.

BROOKS: Now, we are -- Phillips Arena is an indoor arena. We looked at the Super Bowl. Next week we have got the Daytona 500, over 100,000 people there. All major special events. What is -- when we are talking about indoor versus outdoor arena, what is the benefit of an outdoor arena versus an indoor arena? Or is an indoor arena safer in your opinion?

TOLBERT: Well, I don't know. Obviously, I think they all present their own problems. And outdoor arena may have some unique problems. One of the things certainly on outdoor arena that you might have more concern about is air traffic overhead. That air -- someone was flying overhead, they'd have certainly a good look at what's happening inside. So that's something that you would worry outside that you wouldn't worry about inside.

BROOKS: Yesterday, Attorney General Ashcroft and FBI Director Mueller talked about some of the threats that are involved in making the threat level high. Some of those were chemical, biological, radiological. Is that a concern here at Phillips Arena? TOLBERT: Concern -- it's something that we certainly took into account as we planned our security and it's something that we have used as part of our planning. We have implemented procedures that would address those kinds of threats were they to present themselves for us.

BROOKS: Vice president of NBA security, Bernie Tolbert, thanks for joining us.

So, Renay, as you see, extensive plans are in place to make this a safe and secure NBA All-Star game -- Renay.

SAN MIGUEL: And the All-Star game just one of a couple of events going on in and around CNN Center tomorrow. Security officials are going to have their hands full. Mike, thank you very much for that report.

On the long list of risks for this country is a cyber attack. But would the U.S. turn the tables and launch cyber attacks against an enemy like Iraq? Security expert Bruce Schneier joins us. He is one of the fathers of computer encryption technology and founder of Counterpane Internet Security. Bruce, thanks so much for joining us today.

BRUCE SCHNEIER, COUNTERPANE SYSTEMS: Thanks for having me.

SAN MIGUEL: You know, you said that it's going to be real difficult for this country to face a kind of a concerted cyber attack on the part of a rogue nation. Why is that?

SCHNEIER: Well, our networks are very complicated and very interconnected. We can see examples in just some of the minor attacks we've seen. The worm of two weeks ago disrupted 911 service in Seattle. It disrupted some ATM machines. The interconnections are surprising, and things that happen over here affect connections over there. And we never actually know what the effects are going to be.

SAN MIGUEL: So we've heard -- I mean, it was a teenager, I believe, in Canada who went by the nickname of Mafia Boy who was able to use the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) service attacks to shut down Yahoo!, Ebay, some other big sites. You know, the rogue nations, the enemies of this country would not be able to pull that off on a larger scale?

SCHNEIER: There is a lot you can do to disrupt computer infrastructure. I mean, whether it's kids or governments, I expect that there's a lot of things that people can do. The question is, what kind of damage will it cause? You know, we're talking about disrupting e-mail or chat rooms. It's very different than a physical attack where people die. So you'll see a lot of inconveniences. In the attack of two weeks ago is a great example. A lot of people were inconvenienced, but there was not any real damage.

SAN MIGUEL: Well, what about, then, in concert with a physical, real world attack? Just as a way to maybe just sow more chaos among the populace? SCHNEIER: I mean, that's certainly possible. In America was going to be invaded by a country, there would be a cyber component. Just like if we're thinking of invading Iraq, we might include a cyber component. It's a minor thing, it affects civilians, not the military, more, so it's something you have to weigh when you conduct a war. But warfare has always been conducted against civilians. In World War II, we bombed civilian targets again and again.

So you are going to see that sort of thing, and it's reasonable that we are studying it and figuring out how to wage cyber war.

SAN MIGUEL: And let's talk about that. America launching cyber attacks against Iraq, for example. You know, is there enough of an infrastructure there, especially after what America did in '91 to really do some damage with the best and the brightest that America has to offer in computer security warfare?

SCHNEIER: You know, I don't know that. But it's something to consider. If you have an enemy network, destroying it is the last thing you want to do. If you can, you want to be able to infiltrate it, so you can read what's going on, you can inject messages, you can inject false information. That's the best outcome.

If you can't do that, you want to passively eavesdrop, so you can learn what the enemy is saying. Only if you can't do that, do you destroy the network.

And in the Gulf War in '91, we destroyed communications by bombing communications tunnels, by bombing bridges that had cables running over them. We would bomb the networks and attack it physically rather than electronically. And that's generally more reliable, and in warfare it's an option.

So attacking a network via cyberspace, while possible and worthy of study, it's probably not going to be a major component of any war in this coming year.

SAN MIGUEL: You know, we have about 30 seconds left here. North Korea presenting a different challenge there in terms of cyber warfare? Would there be more to gain of launching a cyber attack against North Korea?

SCHNEIER: It really depends how these countries use the Internet. If you're a military, you're likely relying on propriety networks of 10, 20 years ago. You are relying on radio, you are relying on satellite links. You are not going to use the public Internet.

And I think militaries understand this. Our military uses the Internet for non-critical things. If it's critical, it goes over private network. So you're going to see these sorts of cyber attacks, but they are not going to be the same as the hacking attacks we see run by kids around the world.

SAN MIGUEL: We'll keep that in mind. Bruce Schneier, with Counterpane Internet Security, thank you very much for your time. SCHNEIER: Thanks.

SAN MIGUEL: When we come back, one week after the Columbia disaster, we will get the latest of what NASA has figured out and what it hasn't. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SAN MIGUEL: Welcome back.

Making technology news this week, a week after President Bush said developing hydrogen-powered cars was a national priority, Ford rolled out its hydrogen fuel cell prototype onto the streets of Washington. The company hopes to have the first of these clean- burning cars available in 2004, joining Honda and Toyota in the race away from fossil fuels.

Your home computer could help find a cure for smallpox. A group of scientists and tech companies launched a plan this week to use the downtime of personal computers to share a massive data processing job. They will sift through millions of molecular combinations, looking for one that might lead to a cure for the deadly disease. Volunteers download a screen saver that puts their computer's resources to work whenever it's not busy doing something else.

One week after the Columbia went down, NASA continues to look into hundreds of tips about debris being found from Texas to Louisiana. CNN's Brian Cabell joins us from the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, with the latest on the investigation -- Brian.

BRIAN CABELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good afternoon, Renay. No press conference is scheduled for the Johnson Space Center today. None for the next couple of days, so the stream of information here will definitely slow down -- in fact, the investigation board has been sent home until tomorrow night.

But of course, debris is still being picked up in Texas and Louisiana. And analysts are still trying to figure out what it all means. A couple of things that they are looking at, let me show you right now. One in particular, a particular piece of wing that was found in the Dallas-Fort Worth area yesterday, 26 inches by some 18 inches. The tiles, thermal tiles still attached to it. They don't know whether it's the left wing or the right wing. If it was the left wing, that would be particularly important and we may find that out in the next day or two.

One other item, a photograph taken by a United States Air Force tracking camera in New Mexico, about 60 seconds before the shuttle broke apart. It seems to show, if you look at the highlighted area, a jagged edge. We are looking at the underside of the shuttle. Jagged edge on the wing. Higher resolution photo apparently shows something even better than this, but that has not been released yet. And also on the back, you will see a heat plume coming out, once again, indicating possibly a problem, and again this is about 60 seconds before it broke apart over Texas. NASA has also released a series of diagrams indicating the evolution of failures in the left wing. The green dots are sensors, indicating those sensors are working fine, but then, as the seconds and minutes go by, you see some of those green sensors turning red, indicating an elevation of heat and then eventually they turn black, which indicates they simply go offline, that they shut down.

The search goes on. As I indicate, more than 1,000 pieces have been picked up in Louisiana and Texas. There have been about 350 reports of sites outside of those two states, mostly in California and Arizona, indicating possible pieces of shuttle, but none of those have been confirmed yet.

We are told that this next phase of the investigation after this first week is going to slow down considerably. It will be tedious in some cases. It will be painstaking, and as for finding a cause, that could be weeks, maybe even months ahead -- Renay.

SAN MIGUEL: Brian Cabell, live at the Johnson Space Center in Houston. Thanks very much, Brian.

CABELL: Sure.

SAN MIGUEL: Coming up next, chess master Garry Kasparov played his latest match against a computer last week. We'll talk to him live about what it's like to try to outsmart a machine. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SAN MIGUEL: The last match in the six-game contest between two world championship chess players ended in a draw last night in New York. The tournament concluded with one victory a piece, but only one of the competitors was human.

Joining us with more on this man versus machine contest is tech correspondent Daniel Sieberg. And Daniel, this isn't the first time that Garry Kasparov has done this kind of chess silicone smackdown, is it?

DANIEL SIEBERG, CNN TECHNOLOGY CORRESPONDENT: That's right. People might remember his match in 1997 against IBM's Deep Blue, but last night was the conclusion of this first annual official man versus machine match, and joining us now is the man from that match, considered by many to be the best chess player in history, often likened to the Michael Jordan or the Wayne Gretzky of the chess world, if you will. Thanks for being with us, Garry Kasparov.

GARRY KASPAROV, WORLD CHESS CHAMPION: Thanks, Daniel.

SIEBERG: Let's start with what it was like to go up against this program, Deep Junior, which is capable of thinking three million moves per second. How do you face an opponent like that that is so emotionless?

KASPAROV: Yes, but nowadays, chess playing programs, they have sort of a personality, and Deep Junior is a very aggressive version. It's many compared Deep Junior to Kasparov and, for instance, other versions, Deep Freeze (ph) compared to Anatoly Karpov. So it's quite amazing that you can predict, you know, certain aspects of computer styles that differs it from other machines.

SIEBERG: Does it feel like you are playing against a human opponent, though, when you go up against a computer like this? Is it intuitive in some way, or do you really feel like you are playing against this cold, calculating machine?

KASPAROV: It's a very tricky question, because you are overall overwhelmed with this mixed feelings. At one point, you have to prepare as if you are facing a real human opponent. You look at the openings, you try to come up with something very unpleasant for your opponent. You understand it has very specific characteristics; it's not flexible. But at end of the day, it's not human, so that's why to win the game, to beat this machine, you have to be very precise, so it's quite unusual for human game, because normal game is always full of sort of inaccuracies if not mistakes, but why here, if you make one mistake, you are out of business.

SIEBERG: Right, that's a great point. And I wanted to talk about the distractions or the stresses and emotions that you have to block out as a chess player. How do you do that? Because maybe the computer only has to worry about is a power outage or the program crashing.

KASPAROV: Yes, computer doesn't know what it's winning or losing. So it doesn't care about the games we played before, and for instance, when we played the last game, and I go out there in a slightly better end game and many people criticized me for accepting the draw. At that time, I said, look, it's not just a single game, it's not just a simple position, it's the sixth game of the match, and how I will be viewed with the five games I played before with a sleepless night after a terrible blunder in game three when I first missed win, and then a draw. So all emotions there. They put a tremendous burden on a human player, and it's most unpleasant that you understand your opponent is not subject for the fatigue or any other emotions.

SIEBERG: You can't see the computer sweating at all, definitely. Now, why do you think people are so fascinated by the idea of a man versus a machine? Is it because in some way that we are afraid of how far technology has advanced? That it may be beyond the human capabilities in terms of a chess match or any other type of game?

KASPAROV: I think people recognize that chess offers a unique field to compare man and machine. It's our intuition versus the brute force of calculation. You cannot do it in mathematics, you cannot do it in literature. So chess is somewhere in between, in the crossroads, and we always wanted to know how our intuition could be measured by the machine's force of calculation? And somehow even most people understood that at the IBM's claim in '97 that it was over was a bit premature, and now we understand it's just the beginning of a long, long road.

SIEBERG: That's a good lead-in into my next question, which is, how soon do you think computers will be absolutely unbeatable? Let's talk about the evolution of computer technology versus the evolution of a human ability as a chess player? Are they going to continue to be sort of neck and neck or even in the years to come?

KASPAROV: It's a first match that was a purely scientific match, because we had fair conditions for both the human player and for the machine. Machine was properly supervised. Every move was logged. We had an expert committee that watched the machine. So that's why we know everything about machine's decision-making process.

And it's yet for us to lose. So it was me making some bad mistakes, because otherwise, you know, not making the real bad blunders, I could win the match.

I think for a while, we'll be having this sort of lead (ph) in these matches. But eventually, I believe one day, we'll be reduced to fighting for one single win. In my view, in 10 years' time, the best human player could beat a machine one single game on our best day. It proves we are still better, because we cannot guarantee the same intact performance for six or eight playing games, while a machine could play for 100 games.

SIEBERG: All right, we're going to hold you to that. Now, we are seeing some footage from the live broadcast from ESPN2 last night. Let's talk about the future of chess and what these man versus machine matches do in terms of the popularity of chess, or people getting involved, you know, being able to play online, being able to play all these software programs whenever they want. Is that a positive impact on the chess world?

KASPAROV: Oh, I think it has tremendous positive impact on the world of chess. It's the first time we had a proper corporate sponsorship. It was a company, XVD (ph), that backed FIDE, the International Chess Federation, and it's nice mixture of new technologies, three-dimensional technologies in chess and chess and computers. And I think it was -- the great moment in the history of chess was ESPN showing the live event for nearly three hours. I think this match in New York is also a milestone in promoting the game in the U.S. and worldwide.

SIEBERG: All right, Garry, we've just got a few seconds left. But just like a heavyweight boxing bout, I think everybody wants to know, when can we expect a rematch against Deep Junior?

KASPAROV: It's now -- it should be an annual event, and it's the whole idea of FIDE is just to put the best man versus best machine. And in the regular computer world championships, and if Junior has to win it, and I also have to win the human championship, and if we both win, we will play next year.

SIEBERG: All right, well, we will look forward to that. Thank you so much for joining us. Garry Kasparov in New York City. Thanks for being with us.

All right, Renay, I am going to turn it back over to you. SAN MIGUEL: OK, Daniel. It will be interesting to see. I know this would never happen, but Garry Kasparov versus HAL 9000, the computer from "2001," a machine that was burdened with emotions in a very fatal way.

Daniel, good interview. Thanks a lot.

Coming up in our next half hour, science experiments have been an important part of manned space missions, but is this really the best way to do space science? We'll hear some conflicting opinions. First, a quick break and then the check of the latest headlines.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SAN MIGUEL: Since the Columbia accident, you may have wondered whether there was any way for the astronauts to escape the doomed shuttle. Well, as CNN's Kathleen Koch reports, the Columbia did have an escape system, but sadly nothing that could have done any good in that particular case.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The shuttle has cleared the tower.

KATHLEEN KOCH, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): On the first shuttle launch, back in 1981, there were ejection seats similar to those on fighter planes. One for each of the two crew members.

ROGER LAUNIUS, AIR AND SPACE MUSEUM HISTORIAN: There's been an acceptance that you really can't bail out of these things very readily.

KOCH: Air and Space Museum historian Roger Launius says the seats were taken out after just four flights because of their weight and limited usefulness.

LAUNIUS: They're not much good if you're above about 50,000 feet, and clearly if you're going at hypersonic speeds, they're not much good for you either. The individuals would be going too fast to survive the ejection.

KOCH: After the 1986 Challenger explosion, NASA devised a landing escape system. But it again, only works at low altitudes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's a curved telescoping poll which they use to slide down on a lanyard with a parachute on the astronaut's back, but this is only get good for straightened level, under 250 knots, like as if you are not going to make the runway and you bail out instead.

KOCH: Some insist the only possible way to protect astronauts during higher altitude breakups is a self-contained escape module or pod.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When you have an instance where the vehicle did a rapid maneuver like this one did when the wing came off, it would activate the escape modules and eject them out into the atmosphere.

KOCH: But a former member of NASA advisory panel that recommended such a module admits it wouldn't have helped Columbia's astronauts.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The conditions under which the shuttle came apart were well above any possibility of, at least in my opinion, of having a capsule that would survive.

KOCH: NASA maintains retrofitting the current shuttle with an escape system would make it too heavy and be costly and complex.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I personally think that with the current space shuttle orbiter that we have, it's very difficult to integrate.

KOCH: So some believe astronauts should be given more tools to make in-orbit repairs. NASA, though, points out there are no hand holds on the bottom of the shuttle so astronauts can't work there, plus such gear would eat up space and weight that could be used for experiments.

RON DITTEMORE, SHUTTLE PROGRAM MANAGER: We don't want to overburden our flights with every article of protection when the probability of occurrence is extremely low.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KOCH: The hope is that when NASA designs a new orbiter to replace the aging space shuttle fleet, that it will incorporate a more sophisticated and comprehensive astronaut escape system. But the next generation of shuttle likely won't even begin flying until 2020 at the earliest -- Renay.

SAN MIGUEL: Well, Kathleen, there is a history involved here. I mean, I remember as a kid, watching the Apollo launches, and I noticed the tiny little rocket, the very tip of the Apollo capsule on top of those big Saturn 5s, that was a part of the escape system during those days, right?

KOCH: Precisely, Renay, because, you know, this is a problem that NASA has grappled with since the very earliest days of manned space flight, and here in Washington at the National Air and Space Museum, you can see a capsule that was used in a 1965 Gemini mission, and that contained some of the earliest rejection seats. Now, they didn't re-invent the wheel; it was pretty much military style. A seat on rails with a charge underneath that would propel the astronaut out and away from the capsule in case of an emergency.

And then, as you pointed out, in the Apollo program, after the tragic 1967 launch pad fire that claimed the lives of three astronauts, NASA topped that capsule with a small rocket, and the plan was that in case of a troubled liftoff, the crew would be able to ignite it and blast away from the rest of the Saturn booster rocket.

Now, these were escape systems that were designed, they were tested, but luckily they were never needed because of NASA's good track record. And there is a saying at NASA that better is the enemy of good, and there's a real fear that any retrofitted astronaut escape system, as well intended as it might be, could end up introducing more risk into a system that despite very tragic Challenger and Columbia accidents, really had an excellent safety record.

SAN MIGUEL: And obviously there will be some revisiting of this issue as there always is after a tragedy of that magnitude. Kathleen Koch in Washington. Thank you very much for the report.

It has been a week since the shuttle Columbia disaster, and the investigation into what happened is now in full swing. But what the investigators conclude could well determine not just the future of the shuttle program, but the future of manned space flight for the foreseeable future. So where do we go from here?

To hear a couple of different perspectives, we're joined by Lori Garver, a former associate administrator for NASA, and by Bob Park, a physicist and author of the book, "Voodoo Science." Both are in Washington. Thank you both for joining us today.

Ms. Garver, let me start with you. What will the Columbia tragedy do to the entire space program, in your view?

LORI GARVER, FORMER ASSOCIATE ADMIN., NASA: Well, we have a tough road ahead to find out exactly what happened, and if we can determine what was the cause of the accident, I believe the shuttle will be flying again as soon as possible, hopefully within the year.

I also think we will start developing the next generation of space transportation system. We have been investing in that technology. There are many, many new technologies, not only the escape technology you talked about that the Russians have, in fact, used successfully, but reusability, the mating of the orbiter on top perhaps, of the stack where the engines are that could be much safer. I believe that NASA will go forward, continue with the space station, and go beyond providing hope and education for the world as we go back to the moon and on the Mars.

SAN MIGUEL: But considering the risks that we have been painfully reminded of in the past week, will we be sending as many people per mission?

GARVER: It's possible that when a shuttle begins again, they will go back to the testing phase, with a pilot and a commander. But ultimately, I believe that NASA will fly the shuttle fully staffed, if they can find out exactly what went wrong and fix it as they did after Challenger.

SAN MIGUEL: Mr. Park, where do you think the space program should go in the wake of the shuttle disaster?

BOB PARK, UNIV. OF MARYLAND: Well, before we talk about replacing the shuttle, or repairing the shuttle, we have to talk about why they were there, whether it was worth the risk, whether we can, in fact, do what they were doing better without human beings along. SAN MIGUEL: The idea here is that you think that the unmanned vehicles, robots, can do the same kind of science work? It seems to me that there's not a lot of bold adventure involved with that.

PARK: Well, I hope they don't do the same kind of science research, because the research that has been done on the shuttle has had no impact on any field of science. It doesn't mean it's bad research, but it's just unimportant.

SAN MIGUEL: You say -- I mean, what about the ability to -- supposedly the ability to grow pure protein crystals in microgravity?

PARK: Well, that's a wonderful example. And I'm glad you brought that up. Steve Harrison at MIT, who, I think, everybody agrees, the world's premier crystal grower, or protein crystals. His argument is that the shuttle added absolutely nothing to that. And in fact, at one point, NASA issued a press release, claiming that one of the crystals grown on the shuttle had been used in the development of a new flu drug. It turned out subsequently that that crystal was not grown in space at all. It was grown in Australia, which is kind of upside down, but it's not in space.

SAN MIGUEL: Well, Ms. Garver, what do you think about that? There has been no useful science to come out of these shuttle flights?

GARVER: I don't agree with that at all. I actually believe that we go to space for other reasons than science, for the reasons of fear, greed and glory, to try and do more with our lives and to make sure that the species does not -- does survive beyond the time when we can live on this planet. Ultimately, that's why we go, but there has been excellent science. I know of several experiments having to do with tissue growth on the space station and on the space shuttle, where a company is looking at developing a liver dialysis device. Hundreds of thousands of people die of liver disease, and with this device, you could save their lives and in fact they could live disease free.

These are things that are important. There was prostate cancer tissue developed on this very space shuttle mission that was showing incredibly promising results. But ultimately, it's not about the science, it's about really going for the purposes of the frontier, and the same reasons we went to the frontier throughout the exploration of this planet.

SAN MIGUEL: We are going to have to leave it there. We could have this discussion -- continue it, and I hope that we do some day. Lori Garver and Bob Park, thank you both for joining us today. We appreciate your time.

Coming up, the U.S. uses high-tech spying to make its case against Iraq. How do these intercepts actually work and how much do they really reveal? We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SAN MIGUEL: Welcome back. When Colin Powell made his case to the U.N. this week, satellite images and intelligence intercepts were the prime exhibits. Jim Bamford is the author of "The Puzzle Palace" and "Body of Secrets," two books that examine the National Security Agency and intelligence gathering. He joins us from our Los Angeles bureau. Mr. Bamford, thank you for being with us today.

JIM BAMFORD, INVESTIGATIVE AUTHOR: Thank you.

SAN MIGUEL: I have read both of your books. You are to be commended for your use of sources and Freedom of Information Act and declassified materials, which is why I want to ask, before we get into what the materials that Powell presented, the intercepts, what about what we didn't see? The information that maybe the CIA and others talked Powell and the Bush administration out of using at the U.N. this past week. What do you think was there?

BAMFORD: I think what they showed is basically a sort of second- level array of intelligence. They didn't show, for example, the highest level imagery, which probably goes down to a few inches. They showed imagery that was very good, but it wasn't the best. And in terms of the intercepts, they played some of the intercepts, but the very best probably would have been intercepted communications that were encrypted, that were put in code and the U.S. had broken the code. I don't think they would have used any of that.

So what you saw was sort of maybe a second tier intelligence collection capability.

SAN MIGUEL: And the idea here is that you couldn't show the best because it would have compromised sources, it would have given away too much, right?

BAMFORD: That's right. You wouldn't want to tell the Germans that we broke their Enigma code before we go to war with them.

SAN MIGUEL: Exactly. Here is what Secretary of State Powell said about where the U.S. got its evidence, those resources it presented to the council during this past week. Let's take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: The material I will present to you comes from a variety of sources. Some are U.S. sources, and some are those of other countries. Some of the sources are technical, such as intercepted telephone conversations and photos taken by satellites. Other sources are people who have risked their lives to let the world know what Saddam Hussein is really up to.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAN MIGUEL: Let's talk about those people who are risking their lives, as Secretary Powell put it. The human intelligence assets in Iraq. What are they doing, and how are they getting that information out, do you think? BAMFORD: Well, I think it's very difficult. There are technical means. There are little handheld devices that look like computers or cell phones or whatever, and they can communicate directly to CIA via satellite. I mean, that's one possibility. Another possibility are defectors, people who have defected recently who know what the capabilities are, what Saddam has been working on recently. So I think defectors and maybe a few agents in place are probably their prime sources.

SAN MIGUEL: And the information that they are getting out, I mean, the way that they are getting it out, some very major encryption must be going on here.

BAMFORD: Well, I am sure. And I am sure the Iraqis have invested a great deal more money in encryption since the United Nations announcement by Colin Powell, are realizing that a lot of their communications are being listened to on a regular basis by the United States.

SAN MIGUEL: I have got to talk about North Korea here, while we have you. Does North Korea present any special, different challenges for the National Security Agency?

BAMFORD: Well, the U.S. has been eavesdropping on North Korea for 50 years. So I don't think it presents any special difficulties. The Korean peninsula is surrounded by NSA listening posts in Japan and Okinawa, other places, as well as a great many in South Korea, so -- and a lot of satellite capability over Korea. So there is a lot of eavesdropping going on in North Korea.

SAN MIGUEL: We got about 30 seconds left here. I have to ask you, if you believe that there are also human intelligence sources on the ground in North Korea also helping out the U.S. case here?

BAMFORD: I think there may be a few. I think the U.S. has had a very great difficulty in getting agents to actually penetrate the North Korean government. It's a very, very closed system. It's very hard to get in. And equally hard to get information out.

SAN MIGUEL: We'll have to leave it there. Jim Bamford, the author of "The Puzzle Palace" and "Body of Secrets." Thanks so much for joining us, we appreciate your time.

BAMFORD: Thanks, Renay.

SAN MIGUEL: Coming up, a look at this week's environment news, including a custody battle over some tamed tigers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SAN MIGUEL: In environment news week, the weather phenomenon that produces storm or drought, depending on where you live, is weakening. Government forecasters say El Nino will linger into the spring, but that normal weather patterns should return sometime after May. This El Nino is not as severe as it has been in past years, but it has increased storms in the southern and eastern United States, easing that area's droughts.

The music was only rock 'n' roll, but the cause was something more. The Rolling Stones gave a free concert in Los Angeles Thursday to raise awareness about global warming. Former President Clinton introduced the Stones and said it's up to average citizens to, quote, "stop the planet from burning up."

You might think these tamed tigers are living in the lap of luxury, but animal rights activists say they are being exploited. The monks at this monastery in Thailand raised seven orphaned tigers from cubs. Now the animals are totally tamed, and the monks charge tourists to come see them. Wildlife advocates acknowledge the tigers are too tame to be released, but they say the monks should do more to educate the public about the plight of the world's tigers.

Still to come, some cool pictures and cold facts about Antarctica. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SAN MIGUEL: They provide a lifeline to one of the most dangerous and mystical places on earth. They are the U.S. Coast Guard ice breakers. And CNN's Kyra Phillips has more on their Antarctic mission.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): (UNINTELLIGIBLE) station relies on the constant flow of supplies to its open harbor. A big challenge in a place where the ocean can freeze almost instantly.

Pack ice like this kept explorers away from Antarctica for centuries. Today, the U.S. Coast Guard breaks pack ice every season, in specialized ships like the Polar Sea.

This is breaking the ice, cutting a 56-mile channel for a supply ship to bring in fuel and food. Two of the most crucial supplies for winter's survival. Commander Steve Wheeler is executive officer of the Polar Sea.

STEVE WHEELER, U.S. COAST GUARD: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). And we've got the channel over here, and what we want to do is run a parallel track, shave off big chunks of ice between us and the channel. Then next year, when we come down and have to break the channel, it's all first year ice, which is much, much easier to break.

This stuff is second year. We have already gotten rid of all the first year ice.

The older ice is, the harder it is. All the salts, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and whatnot reaches out of it. Stuff becomes rock hard.

PHILLIPS (on camera): How thick is this ice, commander?

WHEELER: It's about six foot out here. Every once in a while, you get an eight-foot chunk.

PHILLIPS: So do the whales come up and visit the ship? I think they just try more to get into the area closer to McVerdo (ph).

And as soon as the ship breaks the ice and move right on in there. As close as they can.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SAN MIGUEL: As you just saw, it can be a cold and lonely but very spectacular place. Kyra Phillips and crew spent two weeks in Antarctica, and the Coast Guard is just one part of the mission down there, right?

PHILLIPS: That's right. They are out there with the ice breakers to make the channels and get supplies in there. Very important. They are also doing the helicopter detail. They take us from all the different areas within Antarctica, from the penguins to the huts where the explorers slept and lived. It's pretty amazing.

SAN MIGUEL: I can imagine. What I have heard and read about Antarctica is that, yes, the ice, it can be beautiful, but the country -- the continent can kill you as well.

PHILLIPS: Oh, absolutely. It's very dangerous. We had to survive -- snow survival school. We built an igloo. We had to spend a night in an igloo. We learned about crevasses, we fell in and out of these crevasses. There is a lot of hidden dangers. As the glacier moves, the snow separates and you get cork-screwed down hundreds of feet and never be able to get out there.

So, you know, once we learned about the challenges and how to survive those, the journey began, and we are going to introduce you to really exciting scientists and you'll meet the unusual people that live there. And we kind of document the footsteps of the great explorers that spent time in Antarctica. You know, Shackleton, we all heard about him, Endurance and all of that. So you don't want to miss it. It's going to be a good documentary.

SAN MIGUEL: I also understand you made some friends with some penguins down there as well.

PHILLIPS: Yes, we sure did. Can you imagine, you see absolutely nothing for miles. And you come over at a certain point and boom, here you go. You get thousands of penguins. I mean, they are all around your feet. They are jumping up on you. See, look at that. And you can't even really get an idea. I mean, you see a lot of them here, but I am telling you, thousands. See this little guy? He became our good friend. Hey, where did I go? He sort of lost the pack there.

SAN MIGUEL: I was going to say, he missed out there.

PHILLIPS: And there is his girlfriend chasing him.

SAN MIGUEL: They have adapted. They have been able to adapt to this harsh climate down there.

PHILLIPS: Yes, it's amazing. And you know, we spent time with the scientists, these sort of penguin expert, and he explained how following the lifeline of these penguins, how it affects even our -- you can hear everyone awing. Can you hear that? Everybody in the newsroom is ahh...

SAN MIGUEL: Never fails with animals.

PHILLIPS: Yes, they love penguins.

SAN MIGUEL: Exactly.

PHILLIPS: But anyway, you'll see why penguins are important and why we have to follow their lifeline. I don't want to give too much away.

SAN MIGUEL: And always ready, dressed to go out on the town.

PHILLIPS: That's right. They are always so snazzy.

SAN MIGUEL: Very much so.

To see more of Kyra's excellent adventure and find out what it is like to live and work at the bottom of world, tune into CNN Sunday night, 8:00 Eastern time, for an hour special, "CNN PRESENTS: Harsh Continent."

Kyra, thanks a lot.

PHILLIPS: Thanks, Renay.

SAN MIGUEL: Appreciate it.

That is all the time we have for today. Thanks for joining us. NEXT returns tomorrow with Fredricka Whitfield hosting, and among her stories, hydrogen-powered cars are getting a big push in Washington this week, but do they have what it takes to go the distance? That story and more coming up tomorrow. We hope you'll be watching, and we thank you for joining us today. "IN THE MONEY" begins after a check of the headlines.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com





Breaking Ice in Antarctica>


Aired February 8, 2003 - 14:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANNOUNCER: Coming up on NEXT&CNN, a heightened terror alert. Rumblings of war. And NASA's search for answers. We'll look at the high tech side of the news.
Also, chess master versus machine. A live interview with Garry Kasparov about last night's match.

And breaking the ice in Antarctica. All that and more on NEXT.

RENAY SAN MIGUEL, HOST: Hello, everyone, and welcome to NEXT@CNN, live from CNN headquarters in Atlanta. I'm Renay San Miguel.

One day after the White House upped the risk level to code orange, the second highest degree of alert, a few big events are getting special attention this weekend. CNN's Mike Brooks joins us live. Tomorrow's NBA All-Star game is at Phillips Arena, right next door to us here at CNN Center, so Mike, what is the game plan for safety tomorrow?

MIKE BROOKS, CNN SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Good afternoon, Renay. Tomorrow evening, this hall will be full of thousands of people making their way down towards Phillips Arena to go to the NBA All-Star game.

Now, the threat level has gone to high, to the orange level now. So what does that mean? Yesterday, we spoke with Commissioner David Stern about the threat level being raised for the NBA All-Star game.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID STERN, NBA COMMISSIONER: I'm actually glad or sad to say that we plan the security for this event with the impending prospect of a war at the orange level. And so our security is very much in place, and the All-Star activities are going forward.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROOKS: As people make their way to Phillips Arena tomorrow, they'll be encountering a lot of different security measures. With us live here at CNN Center is...

(AUDIO GAP)

BERNARD TOLBERT, NBA SECURITY: My pleasure, mike. BROOKS: What kind of technology will play in to making sure that this will be a secure game in front of 3.1 billion people in over 212 countries?

TOLBERT: Well, we will be using a number of technological means to help ensure the safety of the game. We're going to be wanding patrons as they come to the game. There'll be magnetometers in place that people will have to pass through. Bags will be searched. Of course, that's not technology, it relies on humans, but we're going to be searching bags.

We also have the arena itself has cameras throughout the arena, and we'll be relying on to help us pinpoint if there is a problem, we can focus in on it, get people there to resolve the problem very quickly.

Also, on our tickets, we are using bar code technology so that someone who may have some ill intent can't just make up a ticket and get in. All of that is designed to help us ensure the safety of this game.

And one other thing, while it's not a technical, state-of-the-art technology, we have an awful lot of human eyes. We are going to be relying on a lot of people in place.

BROOKS: So you're talking about magnetometers, hand-wanding people, technology for ticket fraud. We're also talking about technology camera systems. How extensive is the camera system here at Phillips Arena?

TOLBERT: Well, it is rather extensive. It allows the security, the security command center to be able to focus in on any area of the bowl as well as the back of the house that we can see if there is a problem if there is an issue someplace. Gets a camera on it, help us to resolve the issue, we record it, if necessary, for whatever purpose you may need it for.

BROOKS: Now, we are -- Phillips Arena is an indoor arena. We looked at the Super Bowl. Next week we have got the Daytona 500, over 100,000 people there. All major special events. What is -- when we are talking about indoor versus outdoor arena, what is the benefit of an outdoor arena versus an indoor arena? Or is an indoor arena safer in your opinion?

TOLBERT: Well, I don't know. Obviously, I think they all present their own problems. And outdoor arena may have some unique problems. One of the things certainly on outdoor arena that you might have more concern about is air traffic overhead. That air -- someone was flying overhead, they'd have certainly a good look at what's happening inside. So that's something that you would worry outside that you wouldn't worry about inside.

BROOKS: Yesterday, Attorney General Ashcroft and FBI Director Mueller talked about some of the threats that are involved in making the threat level high. Some of those were chemical, biological, radiological. Is that a concern here at Phillips Arena? TOLBERT: Concern -- it's something that we certainly took into account as we planned our security and it's something that we have used as part of our planning. We have implemented procedures that would address those kinds of threats were they to present themselves for us.

BROOKS: Vice president of NBA security, Bernie Tolbert, thanks for joining us.

So, Renay, as you see, extensive plans are in place to make this a safe and secure NBA All-Star game -- Renay.

SAN MIGUEL: And the All-Star game just one of a couple of events going on in and around CNN Center tomorrow. Security officials are going to have their hands full. Mike, thank you very much for that report.

On the long list of risks for this country is a cyber attack. But would the U.S. turn the tables and launch cyber attacks against an enemy like Iraq? Security expert Bruce Schneier joins us. He is one of the fathers of computer encryption technology and founder of Counterpane Internet Security. Bruce, thanks so much for joining us today.

BRUCE SCHNEIER, COUNTERPANE SYSTEMS: Thanks for having me.

SAN MIGUEL: You know, you said that it's going to be real difficult for this country to face a kind of a concerted cyber attack on the part of a rogue nation. Why is that?

SCHNEIER: Well, our networks are very complicated and very interconnected. We can see examples in just some of the minor attacks we've seen. The worm of two weeks ago disrupted 911 service in Seattle. It disrupted some ATM machines. The interconnections are surprising, and things that happen over here affect connections over there. And we never actually know what the effects are going to be.

SAN MIGUEL: So we've heard -- I mean, it was a teenager, I believe, in Canada who went by the nickname of Mafia Boy who was able to use the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) service attacks to shut down Yahoo!, Ebay, some other big sites. You know, the rogue nations, the enemies of this country would not be able to pull that off on a larger scale?

SCHNEIER: There is a lot you can do to disrupt computer infrastructure. I mean, whether it's kids or governments, I expect that there's a lot of things that people can do. The question is, what kind of damage will it cause? You know, we're talking about disrupting e-mail or chat rooms. It's very different than a physical attack where people die. So you'll see a lot of inconveniences. In the attack of two weeks ago is a great example. A lot of people were inconvenienced, but there was not any real damage.

SAN MIGUEL: Well, what about, then, in concert with a physical, real world attack? Just as a way to maybe just sow more chaos among the populace? SCHNEIER: I mean, that's certainly possible. In America was going to be invaded by a country, there would be a cyber component. Just like if we're thinking of invading Iraq, we might include a cyber component. It's a minor thing, it affects civilians, not the military, more, so it's something you have to weigh when you conduct a war. But warfare has always been conducted against civilians. In World War II, we bombed civilian targets again and again.

So you are going to see that sort of thing, and it's reasonable that we are studying it and figuring out how to wage cyber war.

SAN MIGUEL: And let's talk about that. America launching cyber attacks against Iraq, for example. You know, is there enough of an infrastructure there, especially after what America did in '91 to really do some damage with the best and the brightest that America has to offer in computer security warfare?

SCHNEIER: You know, I don't know that. But it's something to consider. If you have an enemy network, destroying it is the last thing you want to do. If you can, you want to be able to infiltrate it, so you can read what's going on, you can inject messages, you can inject false information. That's the best outcome.

If you can't do that, you want to passively eavesdrop, so you can learn what the enemy is saying. Only if you can't do that, do you destroy the network.

And in the Gulf War in '91, we destroyed communications by bombing communications tunnels, by bombing bridges that had cables running over them. We would bomb the networks and attack it physically rather than electronically. And that's generally more reliable, and in warfare it's an option.

So attacking a network via cyberspace, while possible and worthy of study, it's probably not going to be a major component of any war in this coming year.

SAN MIGUEL: You know, we have about 30 seconds left here. North Korea presenting a different challenge there in terms of cyber warfare? Would there be more to gain of launching a cyber attack against North Korea?

SCHNEIER: It really depends how these countries use the Internet. If you're a military, you're likely relying on propriety networks of 10, 20 years ago. You are relying on radio, you are relying on satellite links. You are not going to use the public Internet.

And I think militaries understand this. Our military uses the Internet for non-critical things. If it's critical, it goes over private network. So you're going to see these sorts of cyber attacks, but they are not going to be the same as the hacking attacks we see run by kids around the world.

SAN MIGUEL: We'll keep that in mind. Bruce Schneier, with Counterpane Internet Security, thank you very much for your time. SCHNEIER: Thanks.

SAN MIGUEL: When we come back, one week after the Columbia disaster, we will get the latest of what NASA has figured out and what it hasn't. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SAN MIGUEL: Welcome back.

Making technology news this week, a week after President Bush said developing hydrogen-powered cars was a national priority, Ford rolled out its hydrogen fuel cell prototype onto the streets of Washington. The company hopes to have the first of these clean- burning cars available in 2004, joining Honda and Toyota in the race away from fossil fuels.

Your home computer could help find a cure for smallpox. A group of scientists and tech companies launched a plan this week to use the downtime of personal computers to share a massive data processing job. They will sift through millions of molecular combinations, looking for one that might lead to a cure for the deadly disease. Volunteers download a screen saver that puts their computer's resources to work whenever it's not busy doing something else.

One week after the Columbia went down, NASA continues to look into hundreds of tips about debris being found from Texas to Louisiana. CNN's Brian Cabell joins us from the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, with the latest on the investigation -- Brian.

BRIAN CABELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good afternoon, Renay. No press conference is scheduled for the Johnson Space Center today. None for the next couple of days, so the stream of information here will definitely slow down -- in fact, the investigation board has been sent home until tomorrow night.

But of course, debris is still being picked up in Texas and Louisiana. And analysts are still trying to figure out what it all means. A couple of things that they are looking at, let me show you right now. One in particular, a particular piece of wing that was found in the Dallas-Fort Worth area yesterday, 26 inches by some 18 inches. The tiles, thermal tiles still attached to it. They don't know whether it's the left wing or the right wing. If it was the left wing, that would be particularly important and we may find that out in the next day or two.

One other item, a photograph taken by a United States Air Force tracking camera in New Mexico, about 60 seconds before the shuttle broke apart. It seems to show, if you look at the highlighted area, a jagged edge. We are looking at the underside of the shuttle. Jagged edge on the wing. Higher resolution photo apparently shows something even better than this, but that has not been released yet. And also on the back, you will see a heat plume coming out, once again, indicating possibly a problem, and again this is about 60 seconds before it broke apart over Texas. NASA has also released a series of diagrams indicating the evolution of failures in the left wing. The green dots are sensors, indicating those sensors are working fine, but then, as the seconds and minutes go by, you see some of those green sensors turning red, indicating an elevation of heat and then eventually they turn black, which indicates they simply go offline, that they shut down.

The search goes on. As I indicate, more than 1,000 pieces have been picked up in Louisiana and Texas. There have been about 350 reports of sites outside of those two states, mostly in California and Arizona, indicating possible pieces of shuttle, but none of those have been confirmed yet.

We are told that this next phase of the investigation after this first week is going to slow down considerably. It will be tedious in some cases. It will be painstaking, and as for finding a cause, that could be weeks, maybe even months ahead -- Renay.

SAN MIGUEL: Brian Cabell, live at the Johnson Space Center in Houston. Thanks very much, Brian.

CABELL: Sure.

SAN MIGUEL: Coming up next, chess master Garry Kasparov played his latest match against a computer last week. We'll talk to him live about what it's like to try to outsmart a machine. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SAN MIGUEL: The last match in the six-game contest between two world championship chess players ended in a draw last night in New York. The tournament concluded with one victory a piece, but only one of the competitors was human.

Joining us with more on this man versus machine contest is tech correspondent Daniel Sieberg. And Daniel, this isn't the first time that Garry Kasparov has done this kind of chess silicone smackdown, is it?

DANIEL SIEBERG, CNN TECHNOLOGY CORRESPONDENT: That's right. People might remember his match in 1997 against IBM's Deep Blue, but last night was the conclusion of this first annual official man versus machine match, and joining us now is the man from that match, considered by many to be the best chess player in history, often likened to the Michael Jordan or the Wayne Gretzky of the chess world, if you will. Thanks for being with us, Garry Kasparov.

GARRY KASPAROV, WORLD CHESS CHAMPION: Thanks, Daniel.

SIEBERG: Let's start with what it was like to go up against this program, Deep Junior, which is capable of thinking three million moves per second. How do you face an opponent like that that is so emotionless?

KASPAROV: Yes, but nowadays, chess playing programs, they have sort of a personality, and Deep Junior is a very aggressive version. It's many compared Deep Junior to Kasparov and, for instance, other versions, Deep Freeze (ph) compared to Anatoly Karpov. So it's quite amazing that you can predict, you know, certain aspects of computer styles that differs it from other machines.

SIEBERG: Does it feel like you are playing against a human opponent, though, when you go up against a computer like this? Is it intuitive in some way, or do you really feel like you are playing against this cold, calculating machine?

KASPAROV: It's a very tricky question, because you are overall overwhelmed with this mixed feelings. At one point, you have to prepare as if you are facing a real human opponent. You look at the openings, you try to come up with something very unpleasant for your opponent. You understand it has very specific characteristics; it's not flexible. But at end of the day, it's not human, so that's why to win the game, to beat this machine, you have to be very precise, so it's quite unusual for human game, because normal game is always full of sort of inaccuracies if not mistakes, but why here, if you make one mistake, you are out of business.

SIEBERG: Right, that's a great point. And I wanted to talk about the distractions or the stresses and emotions that you have to block out as a chess player. How do you do that? Because maybe the computer only has to worry about is a power outage or the program crashing.

KASPAROV: Yes, computer doesn't know what it's winning or losing. So it doesn't care about the games we played before, and for instance, when we played the last game, and I go out there in a slightly better end game and many people criticized me for accepting the draw. At that time, I said, look, it's not just a single game, it's not just a simple position, it's the sixth game of the match, and how I will be viewed with the five games I played before with a sleepless night after a terrible blunder in game three when I first missed win, and then a draw. So all emotions there. They put a tremendous burden on a human player, and it's most unpleasant that you understand your opponent is not subject for the fatigue or any other emotions.

SIEBERG: You can't see the computer sweating at all, definitely. Now, why do you think people are so fascinated by the idea of a man versus a machine? Is it because in some way that we are afraid of how far technology has advanced? That it may be beyond the human capabilities in terms of a chess match or any other type of game?

KASPAROV: I think people recognize that chess offers a unique field to compare man and machine. It's our intuition versus the brute force of calculation. You cannot do it in mathematics, you cannot do it in literature. So chess is somewhere in between, in the crossroads, and we always wanted to know how our intuition could be measured by the machine's force of calculation? And somehow even most people understood that at the IBM's claim in '97 that it was over was a bit premature, and now we understand it's just the beginning of a long, long road.

SIEBERG: That's a good lead-in into my next question, which is, how soon do you think computers will be absolutely unbeatable? Let's talk about the evolution of computer technology versus the evolution of a human ability as a chess player? Are they going to continue to be sort of neck and neck or even in the years to come?

KASPAROV: It's a first match that was a purely scientific match, because we had fair conditions for both the human player and for the machine. Machine was properly supervised. Every move was logged. We had an expert committee that watched the machine. So that's why we know everything about machine's decision-making process.

And it's yet for us to lose. So it was me making some bad mistakes, because otherwise, you know, not making the real bad blunders, I could win the match.

I think for a while, we'll be having this sort of lead (ph) in these matches. But eventually, I believe one day, we'll be reduced to fighting for one single win. In my view, in 10 years' time, the best human player could beat a machine one single game on our best day. It proves we are still better, because we cannot guarantee the same intact performance for six or eight playing games, while a machine could play for 100 games.

SIEBERG: All right, we're going to hold you to that. Now, we are seeing some footage from the live broadcast from ESPN2 last night. Let's talk about the future of chess and what these man versus machine matches do in terms of the popularity of chess, or people getting involved, you know, being able to play online, being able to play all these software programs whenever they want. Is that a positive impact on the chess world?

KASPAROV: Oh, I think it has tremendous positive impact on the world of chess. It's the first time we had a proper corporate sponsorship. It was a company, XVD (ph), that backed FIDE, the International Chess Federation, and it's nice mixture of new technologies, three-dimensional technologies in chess and chess and computers. And I think it was -- the great moment in the history of chess was ESPN showing the live event for nearly three hours. I think this match in New York is also a milestone in promoting the game in the U.S. and worldwide.

SIEBERG: All right, Garry, we've just got a few seconds left. But just like a heavyweight boxing bout, I think everybody wants to know, when can we expect a rematch against Deep Junior?

KASPAROV: It's now -- it should be an annual event, and it's the whole idea of FIDE is just to put the best man versus best machine. And in the regular computer world championships, and if Junior has to win it, and I also have to win the human championship, and if we both win, we will play next year.

SIEBERG: All right, well, we will look forward to that. Thank you so much for joining us. Garry Kasparov in New York City. Thanks for being with us.

All right, Renay, I am going to turn it back over to you. SAN MIGUEL: OK, Daniel. It will be interesting to see. I know this would never happen, but Garry Kasparov versus HAL 9000, the computer from "2001," a machine that was burdened with emotions in a very fatal way.

Daniel, good interview. Thanks a lot.

Coming up in our next half hour, science experiments have been an important part of manned space missions, but is this really the best way to do space science? We'll hear some conflicting opinions. First, a quick break and then the check of the latest headlines.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SAN MIGUEL: Since the Columbia accident, you may have wondered whether there was any way for the astronauts to escape the doomed shuttle. Well, as CNN's Kathleen Koch reports, the Columbia did have an escape system, but sadly nothing that could have done any good in that particular case.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The shuttle has cleared the tower.

KATHLEEN KOCH, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): On the first shuttle launch, back in 1981, there were ejection seats similar to those on fighter planes. One for each of the two crew members.

ROGER LAUNIUS, AIR AND SPACE MUSEUM HISTORIAN: There's been an acceptance that you really can't bail out of these things very readily.

KOCH: Air and Space Museum historian Roger Launius says the seats were taken out after just four flights because of their weight and limited usefulness.

LAUNIUS: They're not much good if you're above about 50,000 feet, and clearly if you're going at hypersonic speeds, they're not much good for you either. The individuals would be going too fast to survive the ejection.

KOCH: After the 1986 Challenger explosion, NASA devised a landing escape system. But it again, only works at low altitudes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's a curved telescoping poll which they use to slide down on a lanyard with a parachute on the astronaut's back, but this is only get good for straightened level, under 250 knots, like as if you are not going to make the runway and you bail out instead.

KOCH: Some insist the only possible way to protect astronauts during higher altitude breakups is a self-contained escape module or pod.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When you have an instance where the vehicle did a rapid maneuver like this one did when the wing came off, it would activate the escape modules and eject them out into the atmosphere.

KOCH: But a former member of NASA advisory panel that recommended such a module admits it wouldn't have helped Columbia's astronauts.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The conditions under which the shuttle came apart were well above any possibility of, at least in my opinion, of having a capsule that would survive.

KOCH: NASA maintains retrofitting the current shuttle with an escape system would make it too heavy and be costly and complex.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I personally think that with the current space shuttle orbiter that we have, it's very difficult to integrate.

KOCH: So some believe astronauts should be given more tools to make in-orbit repairs. NASA, though, points out there are no hand holds on the bottom of the shuttle so astronauts can't work there, plus such gear would eat up space and weight that could be used for experiments.

RON DITTEMORE, SHUTTLE PROGRAM MANAGER: We don't want to overburden our flights with every article of protection when the probability of occurrence is extremely low.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KOCH: The hope is that when NASA designs a new orbiter to replace the aging space shuttle fleet, that it will incorporate a more sophisticated and comprehensive astronaut escape system. But the next generation of shuttle likely won't even begin flying until 2020 at the earliest -- Renay.

SAN MIGUEL: Well, Kathleen, there is a history involved here. I mean, I remember as a kid, watching the Apollo launches, and I noticed the tiny little rocket, the very tip of the Apollo capsule on top of those big Saturn 5s, that was a part of the escape system during those days, right?

KOCH: Precisely, Renay, because, you know, this is a problem that NASA has grappled with since the very earliest days of manned space flight, and here in Washington at the National Air and Space Museum, you can see a capsule that was used in a 1965 Gemini mission, and that contained some of the earliest rejection seats. Now, they didn't re-invent the wheel; it was pretty much military style. A seat on rails with a charge underneath that would propel the astronaut out and away from the capsule in case of an emergency.

And then, as you pointed out, in the Apollo program, after the tragic 1967 launch pad fire that claimed the lives of three astronauts, NASA topped that capsule with a small rocket, and the plan was that in case of a troubled liftoff, the crew would be able to ignite it and blast away from the rest of the Saturn booster rocket.

Now, these were escape systems that were designed, they were tested, but luckily they were never needed because of NASA's good track record. And there is a saying at NASA that better is the enemy of good, and there's a real fear that any retrofitted astronaut escape system, as well intended as it might be, could end up introducing more risk into a system that despite very tragic Challenger and Columbia accidents, really had an excellent safety record.

SAN MIGUEL: And obviously there will be some revisiting of this issue as there always is after a tragedy of that magnitude. Kathleen Koch in Washington. Thank you very much for the report.

It has been a week since the shuttle Columbia disaster, and the investigation into what happened is now in full swing. But what the investigators conclude could well determine not just the future of the shuttle program, but the future of manned space flight for the foreseeable future. So where do we go from here?

To hear a couple of different perspectives, we're joined by Lori Garver, a former associate administrator for NASA, and by Bob Park, a physicist and author of the book, "Voodoo Science." Both are in Washington. Thank you both for joining us today.

Ms. Garver, let me start with you. What will the Columbia tragedy do to the entire space program, in your view?

LORI GARVER, FORMER ASSOCIATE ADMIN., NASA: Well, we have a tough road ahead to find out exactly what happened, and if we can determine what was the cause of the accident, I believe the shuttle will be flying again as soon as possible, hopefully within the year.

I also think we will start developing the next generation of space transportation system. We have been investing in that technology. There are many, many new technologies, not only the escape technology you talked about that the Russians have, in fact, used successfully, but reusability, the mating of the orbiter on top perhaps, of the stack where the engines are that could be much safer. I believe that NASA will go forward, continue with the space station, and go beyond providing hope and education for the world as we go back to the moon and on the Mars.

SAN MIGUEL: But considering the risks that we have been painfully reminded of in the past week, will we be sending as many people per mission?

GARVER: It's possible that when a shuttle begins again, they will go back to the testing phase, with a pilot and a commander. But ultimately, I believe that NASA will fly the shuttle fully staffed, if they can find out exactly what went wrong and fix it as they did after Challenger.

SAN MIGUEL: Mr. Park, where do you think the space program should go in the wake of the shuttle disaster?

BOB PARK, UNIV. OF MARYLAND: Well, before we talk about replacing the shuttle, or repairing the shuttle, we have to talk about why they were there, whether it was worth the risk, whether we can, in fact, do what they were doing better without human beings along. SAN MIGUEL: The idea here is that you think that the unmanned vehicles, robots, can do the same kind of science work? It seems to me that there's not a lot of bold adventure involved with that.

PARK: Well, I hope they don't do the same kind of science research, because the research that has been done on the shuttle has had no impact on any field of science. It doesn't mean it's bad research, but it's just unimportant.

SAN MIGUEL: You say -- I mean, what about the ability to -- supposedly the ability to grow pure protein crystals in microgravity?

PARK: Well, that's a wonderful example. And I'm glad you brought that up. Steve Harrison at MIT, who, I think, everybody agrees, the world's premier crystal grower, or protein crystals. His argument is that the shuttle added absolutely nothing to that. And in fact, at one point, NASA issued a press release, claiming that one of the crystals grown on the shuttle had been used in the development of a new flu drug. It turned out subsequently that that crystal was not grown in space at all. It was grown in Australia, which is kind of upside down, but it's not in space.

SAN MIGUEL: Well, Ms. Garver, what do you think about that? There has been no useful science to come out of these shuttle flights?

GARVER: I don't agree with that at all. I actually believe that we go to space for other reasons than science, for the reasons of fear, greed and glory, to try and do more with our lives and to make sure that the species does not -- does survive beyond the time when we can live on this planet. Ultimately, that's why we go, but there has been excellent science. I know of several experiments having to do with tissue growth on the space station and on the space shuttle, where a company is looking at developing a liver dialysis device. Hundreds of thousands of people die of liver disease, and with this device, you could save their lives and in fact they could live disease free.

These are things that are important. There was prostate cancer tissue developed on this very space shuttle mission that was showing incredibly promising results. But ultimately, it's not about the science, it's about really going for the purposes of the frontier, and the same reasons we went to the frontier throughout the exploration of this planet.

SAN MIGUEL: We are going to have to leave it there. We could have this discussion -- continue it, and I hope that we do some day. Lori Garver and Bob Park, thank you both for joining us today. We appreciate your time.

Coming up, the U.S. uses high-tech spying to make its case against Iraq. How do these intercepts actually work and how much do they really reveal? We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SAN MIGUEL: Welcome back. When Colin Powell made his case to the U.N. this week, satellite images and intelligence intercepts were the prime exhibits. Jim Bamford is the author of "The Puzzle Palace" and "Body of Secrets," two books that examine the National Security Agency and intelligence gathering. He joins us from our Los Angeles bureau. Mr. Bamford, thank you for being with us today.

JIM BAMFORD, INVESTIGATIVE AUTHOR: Thank you.

SAN MIGUEL: I have read both of your books. You are to be commended for your use of sources and Freedom of Information Act and declassified materials, which is why I want to ask, before we get into what the materials that Powell presented, the intercepts, what about what we didn't see? The information that maybe the CIA and others talked Powell and the Bush administration out of using at the U.N. this past week. What do you think was there?

BAMFORD: I think what they showed is basically a sort of second- level array of intelligence. They didn't show, for example, the highest level imagery, which probably goes down to a few inches. They showed imagery that was very good, but it wasn't the best. And in terms of the intercepts, they played some of the intercepts, but the very best probably would have been intercepted communications that were encrypted, that were put in code and the U.S. had broken the code. I don't think they would have used any of that.

So what you saw was sort of maybe a second tier intelligence collection capability.

SAN MIGUEL: And the idea here is that you couldn't show the best because it would have compromised sources, it would have given away too much, right?

BAMFORD: That's right. You wouldn't want to tell the Germans that we broke their Enigma code before we go to war with them.

SAN MIGUEL: Exactly. Here is what Secretary of State Powell said about where the U.S. got its evidence, those resources it presented to the council during this past week. Let's take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: The material I will present to you comes from a variety of sources. Some are U.S. sources, and some are those of other countries. Some of the sources are technical, such as intercepted telephone conversations and photos taken by satellites. Other sources are people who have risked their lives to let the world know what Saddam Hussein is really up to.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAN MIGUEL: Let's talk about those people who are risking their lives, as Secretary Powell put it. The human intelligence assets in Iraq. What are they doing, and how are they getting that information out, do you think? BAMFORD: Well, I think it's very difficult. There are technical means. There are little handheld devices that look like computers or cell phones or whatever, and they can communicate directly to CIA via satellite. I mean, that's one possibility. Another possibility are defectors, people who have defected recently who know what the capabilities are, what Saddam has been working on recently. So I think defectors and maybe a few agents in place are probably their prime sources.

SAN MIGUEL: And the information that they are getting out, I mean, the way that they are getting it out, some very major encryption must be going on here.

BAMFORD: Well, I am sure. And I am sure the Iraqis have invested a great deal more money in encryption since the United Nations announcement by Colin Powell, are realizing that a lot of their communications are being listened to on a regular basis by the United States.

SAN MIGUEL: I have got to talk about North Korea here, while we have you. Does North Korea present any special, different challenges for the National Security Agency?

BAMFORD: Well, the U.S. has been eavesdropping on North Korea for 50 years. So I don't think it presents any special difficulties. The Korean peninsula is surrounded by NSA listening posts in Japan and Okinawa, other places, as well as a great many in South Korea, so -- and a lot of satellite capability over Korea. So there is a lot of eavesdropping going on in North Korea.

SAN MIGUEL: We got about 30 seconds left here. I have to ask you, if you believe that there are also human intelligence sources on the ground in North Korea also helping out the U.S. case here?

BAMFORD: I think there may be a few. I think the U.S. has had a very great difficulty in getting agents to actually penetrate the North Korean government. It's a very, very closed system. It's very hard to get in. And equally hard to get information out.

SAN MIGUEL: We'll have to leave it there. Jim Bamford, the author of "The Puzzle Palace" and "Body of Secrets." Thanks so much for joining us, we appreciate your time.

BAMFORD: Thanks, Renay.

SAN MIGUEL: Coming up, a look at this week's environment news, including a custody battle over some tamed tigers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SAN MIGUEL: In environment news week, the weather phenomenon that produces storm or drought, depending on where you live, is weakening. Government forecasters say El Nino will linger into the spring, but that normal weather patterns should return sometime after May. This El Nino is not as severe as it has been in past years, but it has increased storms in the southern and eastern United States, easing that area's droughts.

The music was only rock 'n' roll, but the cause was something more. The Rolling Stones gave a free concert in Los Angeles Thursday to raise awareness about global warming. Former President Clinton introduced the Stones and said it's up to average citizens to, quote, "stop the planet from burning up."

You might think these tamed tigers are living in the lap of luxury, but animal rights activists say they are being exploited. The monks at this monastery in Thailand raised seven orphaned tigers from cubs. Now the animals are totally tamed, and the monks charge tourists to come see them. Wildlife advocates acknowledge the tigers are too tame to be released, but they say the monks should do more to educate the public about the plight of the world's tigers.

Still to come, some cool pictures and cold facts about Antarctica. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SAN MIGUEL: They provide a lifeline to one of the most dangerous and mystical places on earth. They are the U.S. Coast Guard ice breakers. And CNN's Kyra Phillips has more on their Antarctic mission.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): (UNINTELLIGIBLE) station relies on the constant flow of supplies to its open harbor. A big challenge in a place where the ocean can freeze almost instantly.

Pack ice like this kept explorers away from Antarctica for centuries. Today, the U.S. Coast Guard breaks pack ice every season, in specialized ships like the Polar Sea.

This is breaking the ice, cutting a 56-mile channel for a supply ship to bring in fuel and food. Two of the most crucial supplies for winter's survival. Commander Steve Wheeler is executive officer of the Polar Sea.

STEVE WHEELER, U.S. COAST GUARD: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). And we've got the channel over here, and what we want to do is run a parallel track, shave off big chunks of ice between us and the channel. Then next year, when we come down and have to break the channel, it's all first year ice, which is much, much easier to break.

This stuff is second year. We have already gotten rid of all the first year ice.

The older ice is, the harder it is. All the salts, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and whatnot reaches out of it. Stuff becomes rock hard.

PHILLIPS (on camera): How thick is this ice, commander?

WHEELER: It's about six foot out here. Every once in a while, you get an eight-foot chunk.

PHILLIPS: So do the whales come up and visit the ship? I think they just try more to get into the area closer to McVerdo (ph).

And as soon as the ship breaks the ice and move right on in there. As close as they can.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SAN MIGUEL: As you just saw, it can be a cold and lonely but very spectacular place. Kyra Phillips and crew spent two weeks in Antarctica, and the Coast Guard is just one part of the mission down there, right?

PHILLIPS: That's right. They are out there with the ice breakers to make the channels and get supplies in there. Very important. They are also doing the helicopter detail. They take us from all the different areas within Antarctica, from the penguins to the huts where the explorers slept and lived. It's pretty amazing.

SAN MIGUEL: I can imagine. What I have heard and read about Antarctica is that, yes, the ice, it can be beautiful, but the country -- the continent can kill you as well.

PHILLIPS: Oh, absolutely. It's very dangerous. We had to survive -- snow survival school. We built an igloo. We had to spend a night in an igloo. We learned about crevasses, we fell in and out of these crevasses. There is a lot of hidden dangers. As the glacier moves, the snow separates and you get cork-screwed down hundreds of feet and never be able to get out there.

So, you know, once we learned about the challenges and how to survive those, the journey began, and we are going to introduce you to really exciting scientists and you'll meet the unusual people that live there. And we kind of document the footsteps of the great explorers that spent time in Antarctica. You know, Shackleton, we all heard about him, Endurance and all of that. So you don't want to miss it. It's going to be a good documentary.

SAN MIGUEL: I also understand you made some friends with some penguins down there as well.

PHILLIPS: Yes, we sure did. Can you imagine, you see absolutely nothing for miles. And you come over at a certain point and boom, here you go. You get thousands of penguins. I mean, they are all around your feet. They are jumping up on you. See, look at that. And you can't even really get an idea. I mean, you see a lot of them here, but I am telling you, thousands. See this little guy? He became our good friend. Hey, where did I go? He sort of lost the pack there.

SAN MIGUEL: I was going to say, he missed out there.

PHILLIPS: And there is his girlfriend chasing him.

SAN MIGUEL: They have adapted. They have been able to adapt to this harsh climate down there.

PHILLIPS: Yes, it's amazing. And you know, we spent time with the scientists, these sort of penguin expert, and he explained how following the lifeline of these penguins, how it affects even our -- you can hear everyone awing. Can you hear that? Everybody in the newsroom is ahh...

SAN MIGUEL: Never fails with animals.

PHILLIPS: Yes, they love penguins.

SAN MIGUEL: Exactly.

PHILLIPS: But anyway, you'll see why penguins are important and why we have to follow their lifeline. I don't want to give too much away.

SAN MIGUEL: And always ready, dressed to go out on the town.

PHILLIPS: That's right. They are always so snazzy.

SAN MIGUEL: Very much so.

To see more of Kyra's excellent adventure and find out what it is like to live and work at the bottom of world, tune into CNN Sunday night, 8:00 Eastern time, for an hour special, "CNN PRESENTS: Harsh Continent."

Kyra, thanks a lot.

PHILLIPS: Thanks, Renay.

SAN MIGUEL: Appreciate it.

That is all the time we have for today. Thanks for joining us. NEXT returns tomorrow with Fredricka Whitfield hosting, and among her stories, hydrogen-powered cars are getting a big push in Washington this week, but do they have what it takes to go the distance? That story and more coming up tomorrow. We hope you'll be watching, and we thank you for joining us today. "IN THE MONEY" begins after a check of the headlines.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com





Breaking Ice in Antarctica>