This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
History

Tweeting JFK and NASA

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
November 17, 2013
Filed under ,

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

6 responses to “Tweeting JFK and NASA”

  1. Rocky J says:
    0
    0

    NASA’s triumphs of the 1960s were the result of Kennedy’s desire to make the United States, leader of the free World, the preeminent space faring nation. Like many historians have asked – “What if?” What if Kennedy had not been assassinated (executed) on November 22, 1963. What would have happened to NASA? Here’s my take.

    Kennedy would have gone on to a 2nd term. Based on all the historical assessments, it seems likely that we would not have entered into the Vietnamese war. The severe cutback in the NASA budget starting in the late 60s would not have been so severe. Apollo 18 and possibly up to Apollo 20 would have taken place. If not Apollo 19 & 20, then Skylab B would have been orbited. However, it was inevitable that the NASA budget of the 60s would be cut back. But with a more protracted ramp down of the NASA budget, the Space Shuttle would have likely been a better, more capable design. Without, reference the net, I recall that the first designs called for a separate manned reusable vehicle and a separate reusable heavy lifter. The severe cutbacks continuing into the 70s led to merging the two designs into the ‘station wagon’ design of the Shuttle. There were design changes to the Shuttle and its boosters that compromised safety. And the early claims of reducing the cost to lift a pound of payload to LEO went out the window as well as the potential frequency of flights.

    A second Kennedy term would likely not have had the social and economic cost of Vietnam but it would have had the social upheaval of the 60s. I suspect that civil rights would have been delayed by a few years. His death gave Johnson the political clout to push it through congress. Its possible that Kennedy might not have survived a second term without scandal – womanizing, assassinations (Castro, Ngo Dinh Diem), illegal political activities. But I think NASA would have fared much better and would have avoided canceling manned missions and down-grading the Shuttle. Had the early Shuttle design been funded and developed, the longer term savings, not losing two seven person crews, and a more flexible replacement to Saturn might have made a Mission to Mars on or before 2013 quite likely.

    • Steve Pemberton says:
      0
      0

      I think many of your points are certainly possible, but I am not sure about the idea that Kennedy’s desire was make the U.S. “the preeminent space faring nation”. In his first months in office Kennedy was being overwhelmed by cold war problems with the Soviet Union, the flight of Vostok 1 in April being yet another. More out of frustration than idealism he was looking for a way to at least solve that particular problem, and a Moon landing seemed to be the way to go. The Rice speech was absolutely poetic, but probably not a true reflection of why Kennedy was authorizing such a massive expenditure.

      Also keep in mind that even if Kennedy had survived and been re-elected in 1964, he would have left office in January of 1969, with Apollo 8 being the only manned lunar achievement which occurred during his presidency. Surely his successor would have allowed the first Moon landings to proceed as planned, but there would have been nothing to stop them from cancelling the later missions after they came into office, as well as Skylab, ASTP and Shuttle. I think a bigger question than what if Kennedy had not been assassinated, is what if someone other than Richard Nixon had been elected in 1968? Perhaps an even bigger question is what if Nixon had won in 1960 instead of Kennedy? That’s not farfetched because the 1960 election was nearly as close as the infamous 2000 election, and there is evidence or at least speculation that if Nixon had demanded a recount that he would have won. In that scenario, would Richard Nixon have made such a bold move as committing the U.S. to a Moon landing by the end of the decade? Possibly not.

      • Rocky J says:
        0
        0

        JFK does express at Rice the pragmatic reasons for going to the Moon and that it is a race and that there is a need to not be 2nd. JFK, “…no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in the race for space.” “Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial revolutions,… and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space.” So this and other statements would qualify ‘preeminence’. Yes, the Moon landing with all the intermittent steps was a solution.

        Yes, a 2nd term would end in Jan 1969. However, JFK would have submitted the 1969 Federal budget to congress including his last for NASA. LBJ or Humphrey would have run and probably against Nixon. Unless JFK’s second term was somehow immaculate, Nixon would have likely won. However, with JFK alive, it is possible he may have gone more lightly on NASA cutbacks. Also, with my premise that we would have avoided full out involvement in the Vietnam war, funds not dumped into that war would have been partially available for NASA.

        I too doubt if missions up to Apollo 20 would have been funded but I suspect 18 would have flown and as stated Skylab B (from leftover Saturn HW). And more funding for a Saturn replacement.

        Nixon campaigned on ending the War. Without Vietnam, the 68 election would have been tighter. I was too young to vote in the 68 & 72 but at the time Nixon swayed a lot of people, including me, because the War was a disaster. Also, unless an incumbent is great and the legislation, after two terms, Americans generally swap parties in the White House.

        Well, given Nixon in 1960, he would have faced exactly the same Soviet early successes in space. Nixon was also very willing to adapt and do what was necessary for political gain. Look at his creation of the EPA. He would have expanded NASA which was created by Eisenhower. A big question that would determine NASA’s fate with Nixon rather than JFK, would have been the October Missile Crisis. Would that crisis have still occurred? Hard to say. Nixon would have likely executed the Cuban invasion (Eisenhower plan). It might not have succeeded. Castro may well have survived and had even stronger reason to invite Soviet missiles. The Soviets in part were countering the US missiles on their doorstep in Turkey. Khrushchev would have initially seen Nixon as a tougher adversary and that may have stopped him from deploying in Cuba — maybe not.

        But a Nixon win in 1960, with the Cuban missile crisis, its more likely that the military and his advisers surrounding him would have triggered a nuclear war. The World would be a different place today. However, if avoided, Nixon and NASA would have carried on to the Moon but likely with the Vietnam war driven by Nixon rather than Johnson. That war would have likely gone just as badly under Nixon and by 1968, democrats would have had JFK or RFK, Humphrey and McCarthy and others competing in 1968 with a platform against the Republican’s war.

        Had JFK failed in a second term due to scandal, the democrats in power would have collapsed. Nixon would have won in 1968 but its likely that the cost of Vietnam would have been avoided and that may have left more funds for NASA and a slower ramp down of its funding.

        Reflecting on this, it just shows how much NASA has been bound to political winds. NASA’s high profile activities, $billions that are required to explore and the way it was managed from the start, all add to waste of funding and time. NASA could have done twice as much under a better federal management system. We have grown use to this system. Advocates need to unit and speak with a single voice on these highest level issues.

        • Steve Pemberton says:
          0
          0

          I absolutely love the Rice speech, it is incredibly stirring and motivating. But again I don’t think it reflected Kennedy’s actual interests and intentions, which are revealed more clearly in the meeting transcripts, letters and anecdotal private comments which have been made public in the ensuing decades. Kennedy seemed pretty much ambivalent about space travel in general, yet he developed essentially a laser focus on a Moon landing because of what it would accomplish in regards to the Soviet problem.

          When comparing Kennedy to Nixon we also need to include the advisors. Vice-President Johnson was always a strong proponent of manned space exploration, and was the one who delivered the final verdict to Kennedy recommending a Moon landing. Kennedy appointees James Webb and Robert McNamara were on board for a Moon landing as well, and not just as yes men.

          Nixon on the other hand would have had Henry Cabot Lodge as his vice-president, and who knows who for NASA administrator, and he may have received very different advice on the subject than Kennedy did from his team.

          Not disagreeing with any of your suppositions which are expressed very well and are quite plausible.

          • Rocky J says:
            0
            0

            Thanks. I appreciate the discussion. It has been an interesting couple of weeks leading up to the 22nd. This is what I conclude; welcome hearing others but won’t counter-point.

            I think modern day forensics and repeated reviews of data and interviews have made the assassination more clear. Oswald was the lone gunman. It seems much more likely that just chance brought JFK and Oswald together in Dallas. The connections to the CIA, Mob or Cuba seem more a coincidental derivative of Oswald’s chaotic life. The only chance of conspiracy would be if the Mob, CIA, FBI, Cuba – someone with motive, tipped off Oswald of the JFK Dallas trip a month or two ahead of time. This could have sent him back to Dallas. But it was a relative or friend that informed him of the job openings in the book repository. If the conspirators helped Oswald, they didn’t help him much. $20 bolt-action rifle and they risked that Oswald had the mental state and skill to make the shots. [he used the rifle on Gen. Walker 7 months prior to JFK] With as many factions in and around the US that could have or actually expressed desire to eliminate JFK, maybe simple probability tipped the scales. We will never know if there was one or two other groups preparing to do the same. But Oswald showed that he able to control his emotions, steely-eyed and focused in interrogation and debate. With that composure and the fact that the first recovered bullet from his rifle was on target – an accurate shot, and if that was the 2nd shot and therefore he had 4.3 seconds to line up the third shot, he was the lone gunman. The bolt-action aside, the Carcano was a very accurate rifle.

            After this week, I do not think I will look at JFK historically for a long time. If they release the remaining documents in 2017, that would be interesting. Historically, after this milestone, it will begin to fade more deeply and more remotely. Yet with all his flaws, I think the USA would have been better off with him in a 2nd term if only to avoid the Vietnam war.

            One thing remains clear. Kennedy said more than once that he was the man that escorted Jackie to Paris. And today, he remains the man that escorted Jackie into photographic history. Her beauty was truly stunning and breathtaking.

          • Steve Pemberton says:
            0
            0

            Agree on all the 11/22/63 viewpoints, I reached the same conclusions several years ago. I find that there are a lot of comparisons with it and the faked Moon landing theories. In both situations the actual events, and everything that led up to them, are more fascinating, complex and dramatic than most people realize. Studying them in depth provides a very interesting window into what was going on in the world in November of 1963 and in July of 1969. Truth is often stranger than fiction and I think the real history of both events makes the conspiracy theories seem extremely shallow by comparison. And both events are really people stories, more than just historical incidents, an angle that fortunately the media has been pretty good at reporting this time around compared to the previous anniversaries.

            One more point about Kennedy, my premise that Kennedy was ambivalent about space travel is true, but only through November 1963. It is quite possible that as U.S. achievements piled one of top of another over the next several years, that Kennedy could easily have become quite enthralled and much more enthusiastic about manned spaceflight. A hint of this was on his November 16th visit to Cape Canaveral. Kennedy apparently seemed somewhat bored by his visit, but as it neared the end his interest really seemed to spark. The photo that Keith posted of Kennedy standing under the Saturn I was not planned, on his own Kennedy walked over to it and stood under it, apparently making his secret service agents understandably jittery. He seemed especially impressed to hear that with the upcoming test flight the U.S. would surpass the Soviets in lifting power, and he directed his staff to get that story to the press that was accompanying him on the tour. Even though he obviously had the Soviet contest in mind, it could have been the beginning of a genuine enthusiasm for what NASA was doing, an enthusiasm that may very well have increased as the Gemini and Apollo milestones were achieved. However like Kennedy’s possible changing position on Vietnam, we will unfortunately never know.