|
Author
|
Topic: Christenting Apollo 11 the 'John F. Kennedy'
|
Machodoc
Member Posts: 209
From: Bryn Mawr PA
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 02-28-2009 01:19 PM
   
Came across an interesting tidbit at the Archives yesterday, specifically in Kissinger's National Security space files.It seems that in early summer 1969 Bill Moyers, after reading an article in Newsday, wrote Pat Moynihan to ask if he could convice President Nixon to christen the Apollo XI the "John F. Kennedy". Moynihan agreed, sent a memo to up the chain of command, where before it finally reached the White House received a couple of additional endorsements. On June 12 the proposal reached John Ehrlichman's desk, and in a memo to H. R. Haldeman, wrote: "Unlike Daniel P. Moynihan, I can see no advantage to the President to commission the Apollo 11 moon shot the "John F. Kennedy." We would win neither friends in Congress no votes in 1972 and would only become pawns in the press's game of perpetuating the name of JFK. Fall prey to this and the next step will be renaming the moon because NBC thinks it would be a good idea." The next day, in a memo to his boss, Haldeman, Steve Bull agreed, an in his memo said that "we have gone far enough in "Kennedyizing" such ventures." In the action box at the bottom of the page, in the space recommending the action be abandoned is Haldeman's "H", with a note in strong handwriting and double underlined, "positively!!" |
ea757grrl
Member Posts: 818
From: South Carolina
Registered: Jul 2006
|
posted 02-28-2009 04:16 PM
Thank you for sharing that. It's *very* intriguing. It reminds me a lot of the story that, supposedly, the Nixon administration put the kibosh on the aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy serving as prime recovery ship for Apollo 11, which I heard repeated in a 1989 documentary. (I've never seen any documentation to back up this claim, but would welcome it if it existed. I do have the correspondence about the selection of USS Hornet, but never saw anything that backed up the claim about the JFK being considered. I can think of several operational reasons why it wouldn't have been a good idea.) |
ejectr
Member Posts: 2046
From: Killingly, CT
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 02-28-2009 05:10 PM
Well, I know for a fact that the JFK was in the ship yard at Portsmouth, VA in dry dock June of 1969 along with the U.S.S. America and the U.S.S. Franklin D. Roosevelt because I personally saw it there.It would have been difficult for the JFK to take part in the recovery a month later. Maybe it was conveniently in dry dock at that time.  |
Aztecdoug
Member Posts: 1405
From: Huntington Beach
Registered: Feb 2000
|
posted 02-28-2009 10:16 PM
The John F Kennedy never sailed in the Pacific, ever. Despite what historical revisionists will try and plant in our minds, the simple fact was that the JFK was never in a position to recover anything in the Pacific since it never served duty there.To imply Nixon had anything to do with stopping it from participating in the Apollo 11 recovery is simply not true. You are free to love or un-love Nixon for whatever he truly did, but please don't latch on to untruths. We get enough of that from all of our elected officials as it is. |
Machodoc
Member Posts: 209
From: Bryn Mawr PA
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 02-28-2009 11:22 PM
No problem my friend. I'm just posting objective results of original archival research, and the role of the JFK was not the focus of my post. |
ea757grrl
Member Posts: 818
From: South Carolina
Registered: Jul 2006
|
posted 03-01-2009 07:53 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Aztecdoug:
To imply Nixon had anything to do with stopping it from participating in the Apollo 11 recovery is simply not true.
Nor am I implying anything by it, Doug. I mentioned it only because it was a story I'd heard and I wondered if there was documentation I'd never seen. The story never had the ring of accuracy to it (several things wrong with it, including CVA-67 being an Atlantic Fleet carrier and a lengthy, impractical repositioning being required; that by 1969 the smaller Essex-class ships, especially the anti-sub carriers, were the go-to vessels for such operations and that by pulling those off the line you didn't take away the capabilities of a big-deck ship; etc.)I never thought the story had much credence to it, because deploying CVA-67 as prime recovery ship would have brought too many operational headaches. However, I was interested to know if anyone else had ever come across anything about this, or if it was a goofy, stray rumor. I've long believed the latter, but I've also been surprised before while doing research. Please believe me, no swipes at Nixon were intended on the part of this cS member. It's just something that came to mind while reading Machodoc's post and it reminded me of this story, which seemed (erroneously) to parallel what he'd found. (And, to Machodoc, I apologize for the unintentional thread hijack. My bad.) |
Tykeanaut
Member Posts: 2290
From: West Yorkshire, England, UK.
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 12-18-2009 07:35 AM
I have just read that some at NASA wanted to use the USS John F Kennedy as recovery ship for Apollo 11. Apparently, then President Richard Nixon was not keen on this idea and thus the USS Hornet was used. Is this true?Editor's note: Threads merged |
stsmithva
Member Posts: 2124
From: Fairfax, VA
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 12-18-2009 07:36 AM
While this BBC webpage with an Apollo 11 timeline does state "The use of the carrier, the USS John F Kennedy had been vetoed by the Nixon administration", the only other such statements I could find online were from a couple of random, non-space-program-centric webpages, with no citations.However, this webpage about USS Hornet does a good job of covering the simple logistical reasons why USS John F. Kennedy was never a serious contender to be the primary recovery ship. For example, she was undergoing readiness trials in the Atlantic in mid-1969. Not ready, wrong ocean, not the ideal class of ship, etc. Plus, assigning aircraft carrier battle groups on missions around the world is quite an intricate, massive undertaking. There's no way the White House could have shifted things around for such a petty reason even if they wanted to. I'm sure there are more details in books published about Apollo 11. Looks like the BBC did a bit of a sloppy dig at Nixon- he's in the clear on this one. Editor's note: Threads merged |
ea757grrl
Member Posts: 818
From: South Carolina
Registered: Jul 2006
|
posted 12-18-2009 12:05 PM
The highly doubtful story about CVA-67 as Apollo 11 recovery ship (and the idea being vetoed by Nixon) was also repeated in a 1989 CBS documentary, "The Moon Above, The Earth Below." This story has bothered me ever since, and after years of digging, I can't find any evidence it ever really happened. The evidence I've seen indicates the White House had nothing to do with the selection of the recovery ship -- instead, it was a Navy decision. There's a long list of reasons why selecting CVA-67 as the recovery ship would have been operationally ill-advised, but the things written on the Hornet website, and in the book "Hornet Plus Three," do a good job of explaining the rationale behind choosing Hornet and ships like her for the recovery missions. |
328KF
Member Posts: 1391
From:
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 12-18-2009 01:53 PM
Back to the original topic, I think that's a very interesting document that you came across there!Unfortunately what it shows is the depth of the paranoia, short-sightedness, and pettiness of all those involved in the Nixon administration. "Kennedyizing such ventures"? What other President would his staff suggest crediting the moon effort with? A truly embarrassing piece of communication from a shamefull group of political cronies. If you ask me, JFK's name should have been on Eagle's plaque, not Nixon's. |
Tykeanaut
Member Posts: 2290
From: West Yorkshire, England, UK.
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 12-19-2009 07:18 AM
It was mentioned in "Contest for the Heavens" by Claus Jensen. Whether true or not it is also an interesting reflection on some of the political history at that time. |
ea757grrl
Member Posts: 818
From: South Carolina
Registered: Jul 2006
|
posted 01-02-2010 07:51 PM
The story about USS John F. Kennedy was repeated in Craig Nelson's book "Rocket Men," a copy of which I found on post-holiday discount today (it's covered elsewhere on this site). Nelson writes: "NASA had asked for aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy to take part as a tribute to the president's original vision; the Nixon White House gave them USS Hornet instead." I looked in the back to find a source for this assertion, but no citation is given for the claim. That this story won't die is a little irritating for two reasons: the first being that no evidence behind the claim has ever been given when it's retold, and the second being that in the tellings and retellings, it's comes across as a slap to USS Hornet, a great ship with a distinguished record, making her sound like a lesser ship. I sure hope this story gets put to rest for good, unless the next time it's cited some documentation is provided. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2486
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 01-03-2010 03:47 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Machodoc:
The next day, in a memo to his boss, Haldeman, Steve Bull agreed, an in his memo said that "we have gone far enough in "Kennedyizing" such ventures.
If Apollo 11 had to be named after any political figure it would have to have been the "Lyndon Johnson". He did more than anyone to rescue the infant NASA and urge the Kennedy administration to aim for the Moon. JFK had little or no interest in space except as a way of boosting the US economy, giving the US an aim and diverting attention away from other matters. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 54746
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 06-15-2025 05:20 PM
quote:
Originally posted by ejectr:
Well, I know for a fact that the JFK was in the ship yard at Portsmouth, VA in dry dock June of 1969...
Reviving this 2009 thread to add information from Travis Holley, ATR2 (Aviation Electronics Technician Petty Officer Second Class), USN, as received via email: I was on board of the Kennedy and worked on the flight deck. We were in the Mediterranean in June and got back to Norfork in December of 1969. We left Norfolk on March 2, 1969, for the Med and I remember that day vividly for that is my birthday and I turned 21 the day we left. |
Captain Apollo
Member Posts: 370
From: UK
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 06-20-2025 10:28 AM
Perhaps they could have named the command module LBJ and the lunar module JFK? Though I can't imagine the astronaut chatter about LBJ docking with JFK, etc. etc. |
oly
Member Posts: 1497
From: Perth, Western Australia
Registered: Apr 2015
|
posted 06-20-2025 09:52 PM
Apollo 11 was the first attempt to land on the Moon; it was not guaranteed to succeed, and the next Apollo mission was in training to try as soon as possible if the Apollo 11 mission did not land.It would probably be a controversial point to christen Apollo 11 as John F. Kennedy or name the spacecraft after any other politician, if Apollo 11 had aborted the landing, crashed on the moon, failed to rendezvous, or any other outcome besides a successful landing. |
ejectr
Member Posts: 2046
From: Killingly, CT
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 06-21-2025 09:03 AM
We were in the Mediterranean in June and got back to Norfork in December of 1969. Sorry I misspoke. There were three carriers in the ship yard. Thought I remembered one was the JFK. It's only been 56 years. |
NukeGuy
Member Posts: 124
From: Irvine, CA USA
Registered: May 2014
|
posted 06-21-2025 03:01 PM
JFK’s only surviving brother did not seem too interested in the Apollo 11 mission. I guess he had other plans for the weekend of the landing. |
Headshot
Member Posts: 1416
From: Vancouver, WA, USA
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 06-21-2025 05:40 PM
As I dimly recall, Jacqueline Kennedy once expressed her wish that NASA would have the letters "JFK" painted somewhere on the Saturn V booster that would launch the first moon landing mission, possibly on one of the tail fins. She said that the letters need not be large. I do not remember where I read this, but most likely in a Life magazine article. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 54746
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 06-21-2025 07:30 PM
That was Saturn-Apollo 5 (SA-5), as discussed in this thread. |
advertisement