|
Author
|
Topic: The leak prosecution that lost the space race
|
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 08-16-2016 01:06 PM
   
The Altantic recounts the espionage trial of Col. Jack Nickerson and how it was connected to the U.S. losing the race to be first into space. ...the largely forgotten story of the first leak prosecution — United States v. John C. Nickerson Jr. The case — predating the Pentagon Papers trial by more than 15 years—turned Nickerson into a national hero. Newspaper readers were riveted by his story — a story replete with Cold War intrigue and a cast of characters that included former Nazi rocket scientists, a widely read syndicated columnist, top military officials, and a nationally renowned defense attorney. "There are occasions when in a single human drama all the conflicts of an era are concentrated," wrote a columnist for The Washington Post and Times-Herald in 1957. "The Nickerson trial seems likely to be one of those." |
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1463
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 08-16-2016 03:00 PM
This story ignores the Eisenhower administration's desire to demonstrate freedom of space (as in freedom of the seas). That is the real reason for Vanguard and why it wasn't so concerned with "losing" the space race. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 08-16-2016 05:51 PM
Though Eisenhower was a strong advocate for freedom of space and put forth proposals to adopt it as early as 1955, I have not seen it documented that he purposely sought to delay the U.S. entering space such that the Soviets could go first and establish flyover rights. Rather, it was only after Sputnik launched that it was realized that the Soviet satellite offered the opportunity to assert freedom of space — a concept that the Soviets had previously rejected — by not objecting to Sputnik flying over the U.S. Is there documentation that supports that Eisenhower's choice of Vanguard was influenced by his freedom of space concerns? |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 08-17-2016 12:46 AM
One has to remember that Vanguard was the US contribution to the IGY and as such was a civilian project. |
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1463
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 08-17-2016 06:27 AM
Search on Eisenhower, freedom of space, Vanguard and you will see many hits. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 08-17-2016 06:47 AM
The top hit for that search is this NASA monograph, which states in part that it may have been happenstance, rather than any specific concern over freedom in space, that resulted in Vanguard being selected over the Army's Project Orbiter: By some accounts, the final vote could have gone for either Orbiter or Vanguard, and it may in fact have been decided in the end by the absence of one member because of illness. But I can see where it describes the desire for a scientific, civilian satellite to fly first as a direct case for freedom of space. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 08-17-2016 07:15 AM
That Vanguard was chosen because a member of the selecting Committee was absent may well have some credibility. However, the official Vanguard site says that the NRL (Naval Research Laboratory) was chosen over the Army proposal because its plans were based on the successful Viking programme.Of note is that this choice resulted in the first complete satellite launch facility being built at Cape Canaveral. |
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1463
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 08-17-2016 12:36 PM
Read Dwayne Day's first comment here. The History and Historiography of National Security Space. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 08-17-2016 01:01 PM
Interesting. Dwayne's observation that Eisenhower was less concerned with being first than being best is one I hadn't read before, and while it fits the events of the day, seems odd in light of what we know transpired as a result of the Soviets being first. Given Khrushchev's own lack of interest in Sputnik until he saw how the world reacted, one wonders if there would have been any space race at all if the U.S. had been first to launch. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 08-17-2016 01:33 PM
Sputnik 1 should hardly have been a surprise to those in the US government as just four days after the Americans announced that they intended to launch a satellite as part of the IGY, Leonid Sedov said that the Soviets were going to do the same. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 08-17-2016 01:53 PM
I don't think it was a secret, even among the interested public, that the Soviets were developing a satellite. It was the timing of the launch that came as a surprise (even to Wernher von Braun). |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 08-17-2016 04:16 PM
Sedov, when announcing the intention, said "...in the near future." So, it could be that Sputnik might have been launched at any time prior to October 1957.An afterthought - can one argue that it was the US with their July 1955 announcement that started the space race rather than the Soviets with the launch of Sputnik 1? |
mikej
Member Posts: 481
From: Germantown, WI USA
Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 08-19-2016 05:09 PM
After reading The First Space Race: Launching the World’s First Satellites, I wonder how there could be anyone, anywhere, who wasn't expecting Sputnik. |
advertisement