posted 08-18-2010 10:08 AM               

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...

posted 08-18-2010 08:54 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delta7:
"Why are we spending money on space when we have so many problems here on earth..."

---

posted 08-19-2010 11:40 AM               

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...

---

posted 08-19-2010 12:05 PM               

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.

---

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...

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.

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."

posted 08-19-2010 02:25 PM               

Exactly. We are dealing with words uttered in given circumstances. How other people interpret those words is opinion not fact.

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.

posted 08-19-2010 06:16 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
The challenge presented by the Soviets gave him the reason, at the bidding of Johnson, to achieve these ends.

---

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]

posted 08-20-2010 02:44 AM               

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.

posted 08-20-2010 04:27 AM               

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.

---

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.

posted 08-20-2010 06:46 AM               

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...

posted 08-20-2010 04:36 PM               

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."

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.

posted 08-20-2010 07:21 PM               

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.

posted 08-20-2010 11:38 PM               

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%.

posted 08-21-2010 02:27 AM               

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.

---

posted 08-21-2010 07:23 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay Chladek:
Actually, Roger is something of a spaceflight supporter.

---

posted 08-21-2010 08:46 AM               

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?

---

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."

posted 08-21-2010 12:25 PM               

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.

---

posted 08-23-2010 11:37 AM               

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.

posted 08-23-2010 06:51 PM               

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.

---

posted 09-02-2010 03:32 AM               

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.

posted 09-20-2010 02:01 PM            

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.

posted 09-21-2010 03:35 AM               

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.

---

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.