posted 08-22-2001 02:12 PM               

------------------
Brian Peter
astronautbrian@space.com http://members.tripod.com/~brian_space/index.html

posted 08-23-2001 06:07 AM               

The recording makes clear something most historians already knew. Kennedy was only interested in the space program as a strategic tool against the Russians.

We know from previous releases and personal accounts, that Kennedy was against the Moon program. He felt it too risky, too complicated, and too expensive. He favored a lesser response to the Soviet space feats. It was largely Johnson who convinced JFK and Congress to accept the Apollo program.

posted 08-24-2001 08:23 AM               

Interested readers who would like to know more - the story was already told in Walter McDougall's "... the Heavens and the Earth - A political history of the Space Age". That was 1985 - sixteen years ago.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Contrary to the popular view of John Kennedy as a space visionary, the president had little interest in space and strove to put humans on the moon only for its political importance. "I'm not that interested in space," he told NASA chief James Webb late in 1962.

Listen to audio...
http://www.space.com/news/kennedy_tapes_010822.html

---

posted 08-24-2001 10:04 AM               

------------------
Douglas Henry

Warm Regards from Southern California

posted 08-24-2001 12:11 PM               

sorry for not having listened to the interesting URL link you mentioned but I am simply not able to, as I am lacking the necessary computer hardware (soundcard etc ...).

Does any of you know if this exists as a document written down somewhere?

Thanks in advance!

posted 08-24-2001 04:23 PM               

<BLUSH>

posted 08-25-2001 06:14 PM               

I know he was all but canonized in the years following his assassination, but I liked to believe that the Rice University speech combined with the positive words and opinions attributed to Kennedy by the Mercury 7 were true.

This news was a kick in the pants for my idealistic view of Kennedy and his space boys.

Still, imagine a scenario in which the public might have learned of Kennedy's lack of total enthusiasm and commitment to the program in 1963...or at the time of the Apollo 1 fire, when it would have been easy to call it a day, as many congressmen and skeptics urged...

I have always thought public support and drive in the 1960s were at least in part motivated by the public's drive to see Kennedy's space dream come true... kind of the "Win one for the gipper" philosophy...

What might have happened to the program had the public known that the gipper wasn't really "that interested in space?"

Food for thought...

posted 09-08-2001 07:25 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
The news hook of course, is the release of the White House audio tapes of the meeting between Kennedy and Webb. Of course, even though this same subject has been written about since 1985 (and prior) the myth surrouding Kennedy's enthusiam for space flight still exists. One wonders what it will take to end the belief that JFK was a our greatest space leader (an honor that should arguably go to Eisenhower, who insisted the space program be a civilian agency).

---

Well, individually JFK wasn't the greatest space fan, but for Presidents, the personal motives are irrelevant, what counts, is the historical result. JFK certainly launched the most successful and most legendary space program in US history, and he justifiedly deserves credit for that, even if others (like LBJ) personnally did more to push it through than did JFK himself.

I'm not so sure about Eisenhower - some blame of having been reticent and losing precious time to get the first US satellite off the ground.

posted 09-08-2001 07:29 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob Sumowski:
Personally, I was disappointed to learn that President Kennedy was not the space enthusiast that I thought he was.

I know he was all but canonized in the years following his assassination, but I liked to believe that the Rice University speech combined with the positive words and opinions attributed to Kennedy by the Mercury 7 were true.

This news was a kick in the pants for my idealistic view of Kennedy and his space boys.

Still, imagine a scenario in which the public might have learned of Kennedy's lack of total enthusiasm and commitment to the program in 1963...or at the time of the Apollo 1 fire, when it would have been easy to call it a day, as many congressmen and skeptics urged...

I have always thought public support and drive in the 1960s were at least in part motivated by the public's drive to see Kennedy's space dream come true... kind of the "Win one for the gipper" philosophy...

What might have happened to the program had the public known that the gipper wasn't really "that interested in space?"

Food for thought...

Rob

---

I don't think Presidents should be fans of this or that - that is irrelevant in my eyes. They should provide political leadership, and JFK certainly did that in launching the Apollo program. For whatever political reasons this was, does not really matter, and whether he enjoyed the astronauts for being his childhood and exploration heroes or for being the vanguards of his conflict with the Soviet Union is not very important to me.

One might question for what motives the Soviets put Gagarin into space? Was it for sheer exploration and scientific curiosity? Certainly not. It was a tool to show the world the technological and military superiority of their Socialist system. Still, they deserve credit for having put the first man, the first woman, the first spacewalker into orbit, to the same degree JFK merits credit for having started the program that put the first man on the Moon.

posted 09-08-2001 03:27 PM               

When one strips it down and looks purely at the result, there is little to question about his leadership regarding the program.

Leaders' personal opinions, however, do provide a context in which historians are enabled a closer look into the PROCESS of decision-making rather than simply the result of the decision made, in which case this new information is vital. It is the context which provides us insight into motivation BEHIND decision-making. To many, the process is in itself fascinating. That was my interest in writing the original post.

You do, however, bring up an interesting argument regarding simply analyzing the result, rather than investigating the process and context. When using this mode of thinking (results only) as the sole basis for examining the decision-making of a leader, your point is clear: Kennedy got the job done.

posted 09-09-2001 06:48 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Actually Kirsten, the book Jurgen mentions does not include the transcript of the conversation in question. He was simply referring to a discussion of JFK's dislike of space exploration.

As far as I am aware, a transcript has yet to be created. If one surfaces, I'll be sure to post it here.

---

Transcripts were too have been created as time went on and tapes were released....

I think I know where the url is, when I find it I'll post it....

posted 09-09-2001 06:56 AM               

Try this url for a text based transcipt of that tape.

Kisten, this will work for you and anyone else who doesn't have sound.

Personally I feel it is also the end result that was important....

posted 09-09-2001 09:47 AM               

The JFK library, as well as several books on the political history of the space race, state that Webb and Robert Seamans came to this November 21, 1962 meeting discussing a supplemental budget for NASA and the effect the increased money would have on expediting the scheduled orbital flights and the Apollo Space Program. When discussing whether the increased budget would change the target dates for the Apollo Program, including the lunar landing, Web and Seamans explained that it wouldn't, and that they were seeking at that point to establish the technology to meet other national interests in space.

During the animated exchange Webb is arguing that the lunar program is "one" of the top priority programs of NASA, and Kennedy wanted it clear that it was "the" priority program, not only of NASA, but of the entire government - with the desired effect being that the US beat the Russians to the moon.

All of you know, the only reason Apollo 8 was rescheduled to make the first journey to the moon in Dec 1968 was to beat the Russians, as was the moon landing itself.

Yes, Rob, Eisenhower created NASA as a civilian agency - but because of the bickering between the Army and the Air Force on who would control the rocket program - the secrecy that would impede any scientific advance and thus the scientific community would not be as receptive to join - though he spoke privately about his desire to have the satellites (a new concept) spying on the Soviet Union, and when it came to choosing the Mercury Astronauts - the debate on the council was what were the desired backgrounds should be - Ike said "Tell them to pick the astronauts from the military test pilots. We have plenty to choose from, and they're already on our payroll."

The creation of NASA and the initial birth of the American Space exploration was from the Soviet's launch of Sputnik - make no mistake about that.

The initial goal of the lunar landing was from an advisory panel to Kennedy - not from NASA itself - selling it to the President - NASA itself was taken aback by the goal, and some were unsure if we could do it. I remember seeing a copy of the original memo by Kennedy's staff on sending men to the moon as a goal and Kennedy handwrote on the side "Can this really be done?"

Bear in mind that this exchange between Webb and Kennedy took place only one month after the Cuban Missile Crisis where we came within one blink of an eye on either part of a nuclear war. There was a fairly new wall built in Berlin to separate the East from the West, Kruschev was constantly bragging about the superiority of the Russians, and if you read the excellent book "The Race" by James Schefter (Life's correspondent covering the space program) you would get a very strong flavor of how the two government's were doing whatever was necessary to win the "Space Race" - and that precisely what it always had been from the late 1950's through the moon landing.

The goal had to be long range, and give us a chance to play catch up, and something that we could win - as the Soviet Union had already beaten us to satellites, first launch into space, first man into space, etc., etc. It had to be something so substantial - and Shepard's flight had to be successful - before he could declare that is what it was.

Kennedy also had significant problems on the homefront as well - consider the problems in Selma, Montgomery - King's march on Washington, problems with fighting poverty, problems elsewhere in the world in Vietnam escalating, the Belgian Congo, etc. I am not saying Kennedy handled all well, but he did have these big items on his plate. He didn't live to see the end of his first term.

So when an Agency head comes into the office of the Chief Executive - and asks for MORE money that will have NO positive effect on what is already a monumental task - that will take additional tremendous resources - and tells the Chief Executive - Your goal is only one of the many We envision, We wish to broaden the spectrum (with no clear cut end to what we will accomplish or at what cost) - what do you think the Chief Executive - who doesn't control the budget and has to wrestle with Congress for the money he already had - going to reply. He was p_ssed off and incredulous of this request.

Kennedy did get the ball rolling with the lunar landing goal - our Country was responsible for the greatest scientific achievement since the discovery that the world was round and Columbus not falling of the edge of the earth.

We all regret that after the lunar landing - the space program and venture stalled to the paltry venue we observe now. Johnson's Great Society, Congressional budget slashing, 1968 & 1969,Nixon, Vietnam, race riots, and every other riot around the world - had much to do with that.

Don't take one recorded heated debate out of historical context - and think Kennedy really didn't care - sure he did - maybe his motivation was not as pure as yours is TODAY- in hindsight and knowing long after Kennedy died (and before his goal was met I might add) - but at the time - beating the Russians for all Americans was extremely important! Everyone alive in this country at the time knew it.

Art Siemientkowski