Space News
space history and artifacts articles

Messages
space history discussion forums

Sightings
worldwide astronaut appearances

Resources
selected space history documents

Websites
related space history websites

  collectSPACE: Messages
  Mercury - Gemini - Apollo
  Myth: Popular Support for Project Apollo

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Myth: Popular Support for Project Apollo
Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 27328
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 08-18-2010 10:08 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
National Air and Space Museum curator and former NASA Chief Historian Roger Launius' charts illustrating contemporary public support (or rather lack thereof) for Apollo have been mentioned here before. On Monday, he devoted an entry on his blog to the subject:
The belief that Apollo enjoyed enthusiastic support during the 1960s and that somehow NASA has lost its compass thereafter still enjoys broad appeal. This is an important conception, for without the active agreement of political leaders and at least public acquiescence no exploration effort may be sustained for any length of time.

The level of popular support that most people believe the public held for the Kennedy decision to undertake the Moon landings are, therefore, perceived as something that must be gained for the present space exploration agenda to succeed. Repeatedly a chorus of remorse for the lukewarm popular support enjoyed by specific space exploration activities is followed with a heavy sigh and the conclusion, "if only our current efforts had the same level of commitment enjoyed by Apollo, all would be well."

While there may be reasons to accept that Apollo was transcendentally important at some sublime level, assuming a generally rosy public acceptance of it is at best a simplistic and ultimately unsatisfactory conclusion...

moorouge
Member

Posts: 1490
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009

posted 08-18-2010 11:31 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for moorouge   Click Here to Email moorouge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hear, hear!!

Delta7
Member

Posts: 1153
From: Ossian IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007

posted 08-18-2010 11:37 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Delta7   Click Here to Email Delta7     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If I had a dime for every time I've heard "Why are we spending money on space when we have so many problems here on earth..." over the last four decades, ...I'd be able to fly in space on a tourist mission.

Blackarrow
Member

Posts: 2024
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 08-18-2010 05:00 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Blackarrow     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I have lost count of the number of people I've told that NASA never spend a single dollar in space, but spend a lot of dollars on Earth, keeping people in work who then pay taxes and spend their dollars in local shops, which keeps other people in work who pay taxes......

Hart Sastrowardoyo
Member

Posts: 2123
From: Toms River, NJ,USA
Registered: Aug 2000

posted 08-18-2010 08:54 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Hart Sastrowardoyo   Click Here to Email Hart Sastrowardoyo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Delta7:
"Why are we spending money on space when we have so many problems here on earth..."
The answer to this, partially, is to ask the asker, "How much money is wasted annually by the federal department of Health and Human Services?"

moorouge
Member

Posts: 1490
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009

posted 08-19-2010 11:40 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for moorouge   Click Here to Email moorouge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
I have lost count of the number of people I've told that NASA never spend a single dollar in space, but spend a lot of dollars on Earth, keeping people in work who then pay taxes and spend their dollars in local shops, which keeps other people in work who pay taxes...
As I have said many times myself. Kennedy used Apollo to boost a failing US economy. To beat the Soviets in space was the sugar coating on an otherwise bitter pill for the American public to swallow.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 27328
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 08-19-2010 12:05 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
Kennedy used Apollo to boost a failing US economy. To beat the Soviets in space was the sugar coating on an otherwise bitter pill for the American public to swallow.
The historical record would somewhat question that assertion, especially given the Nov. 1962 recorded exchange between Kennedy and James Webb at the White House. Kennedy is heard saying...
Now, this may not change anything about that schedule but at least we ought to be clear, otherwise we shouldn't be spending this kind of money because I'm not that interested in space...
The President preceded that comment with another defining why he was backing Apollo:
And the second point is the fact that the Soviet Union has made this a test of the system. So that's why we're doing it.
Dwayne Day provides a background and analysis for Kennedy's motives.
Apollo was a political decision to achieve a political goal, to demonstrate the technological and organizational power of the United States and thereby demonstrate that democratic capitalism was superior to Soviet-style communism as a form of societal organization.

There are other examples during this meeting of Kennedy's view of space as a demonstration of power in the Cold War. During the 21 November meeting, Webb told Kennedy, "And I have some feeling that you might not have been as successful on Cuba if we hadn't flown John Glenn and demonstrated we had a real overall technical capability here." Webb was referring to the recent Cuban Missile Crisis, during which the United States and the Soviet Union had reached the brink of war. The Soviets agreed to withdraw their nuclear-tipped missiles from Cuba in an action that many people perceived as a humiliating defeat and that ultimately led to the downfall of Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev.

Kennedy replied, "We agree. That's why we wanna put this program.... That's the dramatic evidence that we're preeminent in space."

moorouge
Member

Posts: 1490
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009

posted 08-19-2010 02:25 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for moorouge   Click Here to Email moorouge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Exactly. We are dealing with words uttered in given circumstances. How other people interpret those words is opinion not fact.
The fact is that Kennedy was NOT all that interested in space. The enthusiast in his administration was Johnson.

Kennedy was interested in re-election, in human rights and social welfare. He was also conscious of the need to improve the economy particularly in the southern states where electorial success lay. The challenge presented by the Soviets gave him the reason, at the bidding of Johnson, to achieve these ends. Going to the Moon would not, by itself, get him a second term in office.

If one needs an example, think of Michoud and how Apollo changed it.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 27328
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 08-19-2010 06:16 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
The challenge presented by the Soviets gave him the reason, at the bidding of Johnson, to achieve these ends.
What direct sources are there for this assertion? If Kennedy felt that Apollo served an important role to his re-election, at least as it pertained to growing the economy, why was he continuing to push international cooperation? Returning to Dwayne Day's analysis:
In September 1963, during a speech before the United Nations, Kennedy again proposed a joint lunar program to the Soviet Union. The proposal was not enthusiastically received by Khrushchev. Kennedy's death only a little more than a month later essentially made the proposal irrelevant. Discussion of a joint Moon mission with the Soviet Union died out in the early months of the Johnson administration. However, Kennedy's actions throughout his presidency were consistent. As President, he viewed space as merely an extension of political competition –- and potentially cooperation –- between the superpowers. Kennedy showed no other enthusiasm about space exploration outside of this political context. [emphasis mine]

moorouge
Member

Posts: 1490
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009

posted 08-20-2010 02:44 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for moorouge   Click Here to Email moorouge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
To quote Mandy Rice Davies - "Well, he would say that wouldn't he?"

Your quote doesn't negate my opinion that Kennedy saw Apollo as a means of achieving his other political aims. Apollo was a child of its time.

I fear we will have to agree to differ on this matter. Besides, we are straying somewhat from the theme of this thread. Much more to the point would be some evidence that, in the Sixties, a majority of the US population were ambivalent about going to the Moon.

GACspaceguy
Member

Posts: 1394
From: Guyton, GA
Registered: Jan 2006

posted 08-20-2010 04:27 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for GACspaceguy   Click Here to Email GACspaceguy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
Much more to the point would be some evidence that, in the Sixties, a majority of the US population were ambivalent about going to the Moon.
No disrespect here, but where you living in the US during the 60's and have since moved? The reason I ask is that it sounds like you have first hand knowledge of the public climate at the time.

I was 12 at the time of the landing and for my age group that was a topic of many childhood "discussion," as well, was the fact that those that I knew (including their parents) in the neighborhood watched the launches and flights preceding the landing not just the landing itself. I am just saying that as one who lived through the time, I know that the families I interacted with had great interest in Apollo.

I never heard anyone say that going to the moon was bad. We lived in a neighborhood far removed from any aviation ties; they were typical blue collar workers. I went on to have a life in aviation because of the program and that is why I am on this forum, but none of my friends back then did, however during that time we all wanted to be astronauts.

As with all polls I guess the outcome is dependent on who you "select" to ask. I would be interested in your review of the Apollo climate in your neighborhood "during the day" where ever you lived.

moorouge
Member

Posts: 1490
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009

posted 08-20-2010 06:46 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for moorouge   Click Here to Email moorouge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I have never said there was no interest. However, the original posting in this thread did suggest that interest in Apollo was not as widespread as popular belief would suggest. To quote the original paragraph from that post
While there may be reasons to accept that Apollo was transcendentally important at some sublime level, assuming a generally rosy public acceptance of it is at best a simplistic and ultimately unsatisfactory conclusion...
What I have suggested is that Kennedy used Apollo and the general feeling of 'beat the Russians' to spend money on his main political aims.

moorouge
Member

Posts: 1490
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009

posted 08-20-2010 04:36 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for moorouge   Click Here to Email moorouge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Roger Launius's blog goes on to say -
For example, in the summer of 1965 one third of the nation favored cutting the space budget, while only 16 percent wanted to increase it. Over the next three-and-one-half years, the number in favor of cutting space spending went up to 40 percent, with those preferring an increase dropping to 14 percent. At the end of 1965, the New York Times reported that a poll conducted in six American cities showed five other public issues holding priority over efforts in outer space. Polls in the 1960s also consistently ranked spaceflight near the top of those programs to be cut in the federal budget. Most Americans seemingly preferred doing something about air and water pollution, job training for unskilled workers, national beautification, and poverty before spending federal funds on human spaceflight. The following year Newsweek echoed the Times story, stating: "The U.S. space program is in decline. The Vietnam war and the desperate conditions of the nation's poor and its cities--which make space flight seem, in comparison, like an embarrassing national self-indulgence -- have combined to drag down a program where the sky was no longer the limit."
Whilst not exactly on the point, Gallup Polls shed further light on public opinion about Apollo -

From the Gallup Poll website -

Do Americans remember the Apollo program with the same type of glowing terms being used to describe its historical significance today?

It appears that some of the hyperbole surrounding the moon effort is not necessarily endorsed by the average American. A July 13-14 poll asked Americans if they agreed with a statement, based on an assertion appearing on the NASA web site, that "the human race accomplished its single greatest technological achievement of all time by landing a man on the moon." Only 39% agree with this statement. Fifty-nine percent don't. Presumably, technological developments that have occurred since 1969, including in particular the computer, have stolen some of the moon program's luster.

One assumes that it is young Americans who are least likely to remember Armstrong, since they were not alive at the time of the historic mission. Is this true?

No, exactly the opposite is true. Those who are now 18-29 years old, and thus who were not yet born in 1969, are most likely to be able to name Neil Armstrong. The older one gets, the less likely he or she is to name Armstrong, culminating in the fact that only 29% of those 65 and older can name him. It can be assumed that the youngest Americans are most likely to have run across the Armstrong name in their history classes, while older Americans, who may have watched on television, have fading memories when it comes to specifics.

By the way, Armstrong is better known now than he was 10 years ago, when in a similar Gallup poll, only 39% could name him as the first man to walk on the moon.

MCroft04
Member

Posts: 1219
From: Smithfield, Me, USA
Registered: Mar 2005

posted 08-20-2010 07:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for MCroft04   Click Here to Email MCroft04     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
A July 13-14 poll asked Americans if they agreed with a statement, based on an assertion appearing on the NASA web site, that "the human race accomplished its single greatest technological achievement of all time by landing a man on the moon." Only 39% agree with this statement. Fifty-nine percent don't.
The above statement does not say how Americans supported the program. In addition, Roger Launius is obviously not a proponent of human space flight (read his book Robots in Space - a very good book), so his comments may be a bit biased

Jay Chladek
Member

Posts: 2211
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007

posted 08-20-2010 11:15 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jay Chladek   Click Here to Email Jay Chladek     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Actually, Roger is something of a spaceflight supporter. But he also tries to as much as possible analyze how and why we did the things we did in space exploration and approaches the subject from a non-biased standpoint as much as possible. It could be that his hard line look at things is perceived as bias against the space program, but usually his conclusions seem to be spot on when one takes the time to really look at them.

capoetc
Member

Posts: 1705
From: Newnan GA (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005

posted 08-20-2010 11:38 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for capoetc   Click Here to Email capoetc     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I think it depends on how you ask the question. I will have to look for the source for this, but when the question was asked (paraphrasing), "Do you support NASA's Project Apollo in its efforts to place an American on the moon by the end of the decade?" the answer was overwhelmingly "yes".

When the question was asked (paraphrasing again), "Do you support NASA spending $XXXM (whatever the amount was that year) this year in support of Project Apollo and its effort to place a man on the moon by the end of the decade?", the answer was overwhelmingly "no".

One would think that it would be obvious to the average American that going to the moon would cost a lot of money, but I think it is an important point. There was widespread public support in general for Project Apollo leading up to the first landing, but when reminded that it cost a lot of money, the support dwindled substantially.

I don't believe there were a large number of Americans watching the first steps on the moon on television and saying, "My god, what a humongous waste of taxpayer resources that is."

To be clear here, I am not questioning Launius' findings here ... I'm merely saying that if one separates the concept of "support" from the concept of "are you willing to pay for it", the support level was quite good during Apollo, and I think quite a lot better than in recent years. Understandably so. And hence, the laments of some for days past.

Perhaps someone with more knowledge on the subject can correct me if I am off base here.

EDIT: Found it. Not exactly what I was looking for, but has the general idea. From Launius' 2003 article, chart on page 6 of the pdf document.

Percent who "approve of Apollo" is at its lowest in 1968, at around 58%. Average during the 1960's would be in the mid-to-high-60s%. In 1969, approval of Apollo was at around 75%.

During the same time, those who thought the US was "spending too much on space" climbed steadily in the 1960's, reaching a high of around 45% in 1969.

moorouge
Member

Posts: 1490
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009

posted 08-21-2010 02:27 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for moorouge   Click Here to Email moorouge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by capoetc:
Found it. Not exactly what I was looking for, but has the general idea. From Launius' 2003 article, chart on page 6 of the pdf document.
This graph is used in the 'blog' posted as the original source in this thread.

I agree that it depends on how the question is framed but even more important is how one interprets the answers given. For example. The original article says that in 1965 33% favoured a cut in Apollo funding and just 16% favoured an increase. From this, one can conclude that 51% of Americans couldn't care less one way or the other. Hardly overwhelming general support for Apollo.

GACspaceguy
Member

Posts: 1394
From: Guyton, GA
Registered: Jan 2006

posted 08-21-2010 06:50 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for GACspaceguy   Click Here to Email GACspaceguy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
There you go, it is all in how you ask and review a question. Funding for Apollo and Support for Apollo are two different questions. In 1965 spending was already at a high level so I can understand why 33% would think a cut is in order. I think it is significant that as much as 16% would like an increase. The other 51% could be interpreted as "stay the course" which was at that time full steam ahead. Sounds like a ringing endorsement to me.

By the way, in a previous post on this thread, I asked about "your review of the Apollo climate in your neighborhood "during the day" where ever you lived." Would you care to respond?

MCroft04
Member

Posts: 1219
From: Smithfield, Me, USA
Registered: Mar 2005

posted 08-21-2010 07:23 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for MCroft04   Click Here to Email MCroft04     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Jay Chladek:
Actually, Roger is something of a spaceflight supporter.
Jay, I agree with your comments, but I still contend that while Roger supports spaceflight, it's primarily robotic and not human spaceflight, hence perhaps a bit of bias.

moorouge
Member

Posts: 1490
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009

posted 08-21-2010 08:46 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for moorouge   Click Here to Email moorouge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by GACspaceguy:
By the way,in a previous post on this thread I asked about "your review of the Apollo climate in your neighborhood "during the day" where ever you lived." Would you care to respond?
Not particularly as it's irrelevant to the general discussion. It's a 'giant leap' from people watching on TV and being excited by what they saw to actively agreeing to the spending of federal funds to put the 'small steps' on the Moon.

Equally, it's a 'giant leap' to assume, as you do, that the missing 51% were really all in favour.

As others have pointed out, one's bias tends to colour one's interpretation of the statistics. A long time ago my university lecturer said, "When people argue they are merely re-arranging their own prejudicies."

This seems to be the case here - both me and you.

Jay Chladek
Member

Posts: 2211
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007

posted 08-21-2010 12:25 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jay Chladek   Click Here to Email Jay Chladek     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by MCroft04:
I still contend that while Roger supports spaceflight, it's primarily robotic and not human spaceflight, hence perhaps a bit of bias.
I don't quite get that sense, but he does look at how and why we do manned space exploration and his contention as I understand it is we still haven't really come up with the proper role for man in spaceflight. As such, we seem to do manned missions these days to keep our foot in the door politically and economically rather then fully paying to the strengths of what man can do in space. Apollo during the later science missions got the closest to that with the field geology work IMHO. But in terms of priority, it didn't come about until the end of Apollo.

That being said, one could argue that some is better then nothing and the science being done on the ISS is good science (it is, in my humble opinion). But it would be nice if manned spaceflight was given the budget and the resources to really utilize it to its full potential and do things for the right reasons rather then for a sound byte on the 6 O'clock news after the weather and before the sports reporting. But even Carolyn Porco at JPL knows you have to keep attracting the public's attention with the pretty stuff. That is why she fights hard for imaging time on probes like Cassini since she knows pictures are worth thousands of words.

kr4mula
Member

Posts: 599
From: Cinci, OH
Registered: Mar 2006

posted 08-23-2010 11:37 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for kr4mula   Click Here to Email kr4mula     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Whether or not Roger personally values human (vs. robotic) spaceflight is generally irrelevant to his scholarship. He does an outstanding job of challenging the conventional wisdom and perspectives on space history, and thus apparently upsetting many of the unabashed enthusiasts for the field. He is also very encouraging to others to do likewise.

In this case, Roger has lectured for quite a few years on the public support for the space program in general. I have seen him deliver a few of these papers and would highlight a point not really brought out in his blog post or in this thread. His statistics show mainly that the American people have a profound ignorance about the cost of the space program (contemporary and historic) and really the overall cost of anything in the government.

They did (and do) profoundly overestimate the portion of the U.S. budget devoted to space, as well as the actual cost. So I have a tendency to take such polls with a large grain of salt.

Not to mention that a poll in 1968 is coming on the heels of the Apollo 1 fire (before Apollo 8), the height of the Vietnam war, and all the other mess of that year - see the great "From The Earth To The Moon" episode. My guess is that public opinion of anything related to the government that year (or period) would be very low.

I'd also guess that of the government programs, NASA was one of the better rated ones.

MCroft04
Member

Posts: 1219
From: Smithfield, Me, USA
Registered: Mar 2005

posted 08-23-2010 06:51 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for MCroft04   Click Here to Email MCroft04     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by kr4mula:
Whether or not Roger personally values human (vs. robotic) spaceflight is generally irrelevant to his scholarship. He does an outstanding job of challenging the conventional wisdom and perspectives on space history, and thus apparently upsetting many of the unabashed enthusiasts for the field. He is also very encouraging to others to do likewise.
I agree. Roger is a very intelligent and creative guy, and very personable. I like the way he challenges conventional wisdom. His support of robotic exploration is primarily a cost issue; it's simply more efficient to send machines into space rather than humans. A good measure of his creativity is shown in the chapter on Transhumanism in "Robots in Space". A bit scary for my generation but perhaps not with the latest one.

moorouge
Member

Posts: 1490
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009

posted 09-02-2010 03:32 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for moorouge   Click Here to Email moorouge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
What direct sources are there for this assertion? If Kennedy felt that Apollo served an important role to his re-election, at least as it pertained to growing the economy, why was he continuing to push international cooperation?
  1. During the election campaign Kennedy spoke about the 'New Frontier' and the opportunities to revitalise the American economy. However, he was careful not to commit himself in any detail about his support, or otherwise, about Apollo proposals.

  2. He appointed Wiesner as his Special Assistant, a known opponent of manned spaceflight.

  3. In Kennedy's speech to Congress, besides setting an Apollo target, he said, "It means a degree of dedication, organisation and discipline which has not always characterised ...our efforts. It means we cannot afford undue work stoppages, inflated costs of materials or talent, wasteful inter-agency rivalries, or a high turnover of key personnel."

  4. Throughout the first four months of the Kennedy Presidency he had sought to deliver his election pledge to "...get the nation moving again." An increasingly sluggish economy was matched by an equally recalcitrant Congress as he asked for funds to stimulate growth by more normal methods.
As has been pointed out before, most of the Apollo funding was spent on the ground. This resulted in new industries and experience was generated in a wide variety of fields that attracted the best brains from round the world. Kennedy was an opportunist and Apollo enabled him to achieve his aim of invigorating the American economy and beating the Russians.

alcyone
Member

Posts: 33
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Sep 2010

posted 09-20-2010 02:01 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for alcyone     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Apollo was not simply a jobs creation program. The U.S. economy was fairly robust in 1961-1962, if perhaps not on a record-breaking pace for the postwar period.

Kennedy was sworn in as President on January 20 1961. On April 12 1961, the Soviet Union, America's cold war adversary, put the first man in space - Yuri Gagarin. On April 17-19 1961, the Bay of Pigs invasion imploded, and turned out to be a botched attempt by a CIA trained force of Cuban exiles to invade Cuba and overthrow the communist Cuban government of Fidel Castro.

Do not underestimate the tensions that the cold war with the USSR created at this time. U.S. space policy and foreign policy was starting to look pretty inept. Kennedy had to deflect the growing domestic criticism of his presidency, and restore U.S. prestige globally.

Project Apollo was his presidency's brilliant answer.

moorouge
Member

Posts: 1490
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009

posted 09-21-2010 03:35 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for moorouge   Click Here to Email moorouge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by alcyone:
Apollo was not simply a jobs creation program. The U.S. economy was fairly robust in 1961-1962, if perhaps not on a record-breaking pace for the postwar period.
To say the US economy was "fairly robust" is only true for a given value of robust.

The economy turned sharply downward in the summer of 1957 and reached its low point in the spring of 1958. Industrial production fell 14 percent, corporate profits plummeted 25 percent and unemployment rose to 7.5 percent. President Eisenhower did little to stimulate the economy because he worried more about inflation and not unemployment. Subsequently, in 1959 the economy realized $12 billion deficit, a new record for a budget shortfall during peacetime.

As the 1960 presidential election campaign got under way, the 1960-1961 recession began. John F Kennedy’s 1960 campaign promise "to get America moving again" referred to the American economy. He wanted economic growth at an annual rate of 4-6 percent and unemployment at 4 percent. Kennedy knew that the economy was in big trouble so he sent congress an economic growth and recovery package consisting of twelve measures. They were an increase in the minimum wage from $1.00 to $1.25 per hour and an extension of the minimum wage to a larger pool of workers, an increase in unemployment compensation plus increased aid to children of unemployed workers, increase social security benefits to a larger pool of people, emergency relief for feed grain farmers, area redevelopment, vocational training for displaced workers, and federal funding for home building and slum eradication.

It was these measures that he had trouble persuading Congress to act on. Bear in mind that Kennedy was not popular with his own party. In fact, in the 1960 election the Democratic candidates polled some 57% of the vote whilst Kennedy only managed 49%.

The big space enthusiast in the Democratic party was Lyndon Johnson. It was he who persuaded Kennedy that Apollo was the way to harness the new President's social and economic reforms to the 'beat the Russians' atmosphere generated by Gagarin's flight.

Despite the injection of funds into the economy provided by Apollo, it is worth noting that in 1962 Kennedy was still sufficiently worried about the state of the economy to want a tax cut by suggesting that business needed the tax relief that would be provided by liberalizing the depreciation allowance on new plants and equipment and by giving business a 7 percent investment tax credit. Nevertheless, it is no co-incidence that the Apollo years also saw the greatest period of sustained economic growth in the US.

Would there have been an Apollo without Johnson? Perhaps not. Would there have been an Apollo had Nixon won the 1960 election? Again, perhaps not.

I wonder what you think...

Colin E. Anderton
Member

Posts: 63
From: Newmarket, Suffolk, England
Registered: Feb 2009

posted 09-21-2010 04:45 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Colin E. Anderton   Click Here to Email Colin E. Anderton     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
My comment may appear off-topic, but I feel this thread demonstrates why we should stop dreaming about a return to the moon.

Look again at the above posts - there is no way such a programme as Apollo is going to happen again; it came about because of a unique set of circumstances.

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts

Copyright 1999-2012 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a





advertisement