…of popular support for Apollo — a blog post by Roger Launius from a few days ago.
I would point out, per Gene DiGennaro’s comment, that the popularity of space-related toys tells us nothing about the degree of public support. If only ten percent of the kids like space toys, that’s still a huge market.
Actually Apollo was popular to the one person that it needed to be popular to, LBJ, and only because it gave him an opportunity to show up those nasty communists as well as preventing them from claiming the Moon.
Its no accident that the decline of ‘support” for space followed the decline of his administration and the signing of the OST Treaty. The rest was just inertia, finishing out a program on which funding already peaked.
Here is a good article on it, back when The Space Review was still worth reading.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/396/1
BTW a good alternate history would be what would have happen if LBJ lost the 1948 election to the Senate…
Or if Lee Harvey Oswald had missed.
MPM,
LBJ was basically pulling the strings on space policy as VP and would have probably just continue to pull them since it wasn’t that important to JFK. So I suspect there would not have been that much of an impact. if anything the money pressures might have been less as it’s probable that JFK would have followed a different path in Vietnam.
To what degree was the martyrdom of St Jack the Liberal necessary for continued support? What if one of his scandals had blown up during his second term?
MPM,
You underestimate LBJ’s ability to keep a pet program going. And if a scandal had blown up who would take JFK’s place?
A survey was taken in the scientific community in 1963 and 83 percent of the responders were opposed to the Apollo program. (source: Neil Ruzic’s “The Case for the Moon”.)
Actually Apollo was popular to the one person that it needed to be popular to, LBJ, and only because it gave him an opportunity to show up those nasty communists as well as preventing them from claiming the Moon.
Here we go again. Contrary to Star Trek, planetary bodies are quite a bit larger than a Hollywood sound stage. The idea that the Soviets/PLA could land one or two guys in a space capsule and somehow prevent anyone else from landing on the Moon is silly. It’s like thinking that two guys could land on Long Island in a rowboat and somehow prevent anyone else from entering North America.
Edward,
That is simplifying things way too much. Apollo was clearly started and pursued as a prestige project to show that the USA was superior to the Soviet Union. It was a bloodless-battle of the Cold War. I for one am glad that we won it, even if got space settlement off to a false start.
Oddly, the data point that puts all of this in perspective is the quote from a 1997 survey that suggested that Americans have a greatly inflated notion about how much NASA costs. That suggests a public information rather than a political problem. Perhaps when the next President proposes a new space initiative, (s)he should lay out the cost and put it into perspective.
It’s such a shame the first space cannon didn’t go up until ’73, after Apollo was done. Perhaps if those skinkin’ Soviets had launched Vostok 1 armed there would have been a more practical purpose to Apollo. Militarization of space may not be a popular topic but it would have gotten the job done.
We are likely never to repeat the political conditions necessary to repeat Apollo. Even if those conditions did repeat, what good would it be to merely replicate Apollo – just to prove that it could be done, again? That simply wouldn’t suffice to demoralize an enemy anymore.
What-if longings for the past won’t change the future.
Arguments based upon the public support for Apollo simply underlines the fact that the programme was driven by politics and was in no way commercial. As a consequence, trying to sell future space activities via their “public popularity” is doomed to failure unless vast amounts of public (discretionary) funds suddenly become available.
So, baring a massive increase in military interest, commercial ventures appear to be the only way of achieve a paradigm shift in space-based activities. Of course, such ventures still need “public” support (investors, customers, etc.) but this will be because they deliver a specific service/product, not some idealistic feel-good factor.
Concerning the idea that toys and other related products (e.g. SF films) also reflect a genuine public interest in space, I sometimes feel that this is like arguing that the sales of magazines like Playboy reflect a genuine public’s interest in gynaecology.
Have you tried finding space toys of late? Other than the fantasy toys of Star Wars.
NSS of North Texas members collect space toys each year to donate to a local toy drive for disadvantaged youth, and year after year they complain about how hard it is to find non-Star Wars space toys.
How can kids these days fuel their space imagination if there are few toys for them to do so?
FWIW, I do pay some attention to the space toy market for the Fun & Games section of the Lunar Library.
Edward Wright,
[[[Here we go again. Contrary to Star Trek, planetary bodies are quite a bit larger than a Hollywood sound stage. The idea that the Soviets/PLA could land one or two guys in a space capsule and somehow prevent anyone else from landing on the Moon is silly. It’s like thinking that two guys could land on Long Island in a rowboat and somehow prevent anyone else from entering North America.]]]
Yea, they had a lot of silly notions then, like the idea a military base on the Moon would be able to dominate the Earth, which Robert Heinlien argued in a couple of his stories. But you have to understand, to the folks who mattered, the ones who made the decisions and approved the money, these were real fears no matter how dumb they seem to us today. Remember, unlike engineering, in politics perception is reality.
I don’t think the “Importance of Other Government Programs” chart supports the authors’ argument like he think it does:
ONLY ~42% of Americans thought Apollo was less important than National Defense? ONLY ~45% thought Apollo was less important than Debt reduction? ONLY ~48% thought Apollo was less important than “another tax cut”?
Sounds to me like Apollo did enjoy some pretty impressive support, at least in comparison to other government programs.
Yea, they had a lot of silly notions then, like the idea a military base on the Moon would be able to dominate the Earth, which Robert Heinlien argued in a couple of his stories.
Wow. Now Heinlein is being attacked by a troll who can’t even spell “Heinlein.” 🙂
Confusing the military bases Heinlein talked about with the Apollo-style program you advocate shows how muddled your thinking is. Heinlein was able to think quantitatively. He never suggested that it was possible to build significant military bases (or mining bases) using disposable rockets at $2 billion a pop. He knew it would require a real space-transportation system (which, of course, is anathema to you).
Remember, unlike engineering, in politics perception is reality.
And that’s the problem, Tom. You keep trying to make engineering decisions based on political correctness and ideology (“privatization is evil!”) rather than sound engineering and business analysis. Sound decision-making requires careful quantitive analysis, not just silly analogies that say the government should build another Saturn V because the Pharaohs or Dewitt Clinton built something completely unrelated, like the pyramids or the Eerie Canal.
Edward,
[[[ Yea, they had a lot of silly notions then, like the idea a military base on the Moon would be able to dominate the Earth, which Robert Heinlien argued in a couple of his stories.
Wow. Now Heinlein is being attacked by a troll who can’t even spell “Heinlein.” 🙂 ]]]
No, he was just reflecting the thinking of the times. Remember, the Saturn family of rockets were originally intended to support an army base on the Moon.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/hortpost.htm
[[[And that’s the problem, Tom. You keep trying to make engineering decisions based on political correctness and ideology (“privatization is evil!”) rather than sound engineering and business analysis.]]]
Rocket engineers need money, lots of it, and there are only two sources that have enough, the government or investors. Neither care about what engineers want, they are only interested in achieving their own objectives. If the objectives align as was the case with Apollo – great!. In not then guess who loses? Engineers are just hired hands to them, which is probably why engineers get so frustrated with both the policy process and the investment process.
Von Braun was successful because he understood this reality and aligned his programs with the needs of the government at the time.
I look at those years through the eyes of a person whose young life was transformed by watching Alan Shepard’s first launch. Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo kept me riveted, and like many of us today, I thought everyone else felt the same way. That was in spite of the fact that I was fully aware of the opposition to Apollo that was rampant from 1967 on.
What really put things in perspective for me, though, was what happened immediately after Apollo 11 touched down on the moon. I was watching Cronkite’s coverage, and after it was confirmed that they had landed, I rushed out in delirious excitement to share the moment with my parents.
My father saw me, and thought I had gone off the deep end. When I said “They did it! They landed on the moon!” the response I got from him was: “So what?”
I keep that memory in front of me any time I go to Space Access, or any other gathering of the faithful, just to keep a sense of proportion…
No, he was just reflecting the thinking of the times. Remember, the Saturn family of rockets were originally intended to support an army base on the Moon.
Keep trying, Tom. Heinlein worked for the Navy, not the Army, and had nothing to do with the Saturn rockets or the Horizon Project you linked to. Perhaps you’re confusing him with Von Braun?
Nor does the article you link to say that the Horizon lunar outpost would “dominate the Earth.” It says its purpose was “to protect United States interests on the moon [whatever that means]; to conduct moon-based surveillance of the earth and space, to act as a communications relay, and to serve as a base for exploration of the moon.”
Do I need to explain the difference between surveilling the Earth and dominating it?
Rocket engineers need money, lots of it, and there are only two sources that have enough, the government or investors. Neither care about what engineers want
In my experience, investors care a lot about whether engineers believe something is feasible. They also care about the financial math. If they don’t, they soon end up broke and can no longer afford to be investors.
Von Braun was successful because he understood this reality and aligned his programs with the needs of the government at the time.
Do you think all of Von Braun’s regrets on his death bed were a sign of “success”?
You keep equating success with spending money rather than achieving goals. Von Braun didn’t intend to create a dead-end program, but in the end, that’s all he accomplished. You don’t intend to create a dead-end program but want to copy everything Von Braun, while expecting different results. The evidence for that is somewhat lacking.
Ed, do you have any links to info on von Braun’s death-bed regrets?
I don’t think the “Importance of Other Government Programs” chart supports the authors’ argument like he think it does: ONLY ~42% of Americans thought Apollo was less important than National Defense?
I think you’re misreading the chart. ~42% of Americans thought National Defense was less important than Apollo. ~58% thought National Defense was more important.
I recall that it was mentioned in one of the Von Braun biographies published in the last few years. I’m not sure which one off hand.
I think you’re misreading the chart. ~42% of Americans thought National Defense was less important than Apollo. ~58% thought National Defense was more important.
I know that, that is exactly how I understand the stats reflected in the chart.
So do you think that 42% is a small percentage to prefer Apollo over national defense?
Forty two is less than 58% of course, but it is pretty darn close for a match-up between national defense and Apollo. Isn’t that obvious to anyone other than myself?
I would have thought an overwhelming majority, like 3 or 4 to 1 at least, would have thought national defense was more important. I’m a space exploration advocate, a fan of Apollo even, and even I think national defense is more important. Forty two percent to 58% is an astonishingly close result in such a match-up.
I would have thought an overwhelming majority, like 3 or 4 to 1 at least, would have thought national defense was more important.
I suspect that a large number of those who thought, rightly or wrongly, that Apollo was important was because it was important for national defense.
Edward,
[[[ No, he was just reflecting the thinking of the times. Remember, the Saturn family of rockets were originally intended to support an army base on the Moon.
Keep trying, Tom. Heinlein worked for the Navy, not the Army, and had nothing to do with the Saturn rockets or the Horizon Project you linked to. ]]]
You need reading glasses. No where did I say Heinlein worked for the Army. At the time he was writing books like Starship Troopers and a few years later, the Moon is a Harsh Mistress. But at the time the U.S. military believed it was critical that the Moon, the high ground, not be “captured” by Soviets, a belief which drove decisions at the time. As a former member of the military he supported that belief and even help create it. Have you watched “Destination Moon” lately?
Edward,
From the article I linked to at the beginning on LBJ…
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/396/1
[[[In his subcommittee’s detailed summary statement Johnson proclaimed that our very future depended on being the ones who first seized ownership of space. “Control of space means control of the world,” Johnson declared.
From space, the masters of infinity would have the power to control the earth’s weather, to cause drought and flood, to change the tides and raise the levels of the sea, to divert the gulf stream and change temperate climates to frigid.]]]
and
[[[On its front page of January 29, 1958, the Washington Post headlined “Expert Sees Moon As Rocket Base”. It said,
The Air Force’s top space expert predicted yesterday the moon will be a military rocket base for either Russia or the US within 10 years. Brig. Gen. Homer A. Boushey, deputy director of Air Force research and Development said the moon will provide a “base of unequaled advantage” for raining “sure and massive destruction” on earth.
The General said “he fully supports the view that ‘He who controls the moon, controls the Earth.’”]]]
So again, as silly as it seems to us today, it was a general belief during the early days of Apollo and was a driver of it.
And again, regarding Robert Heinlein and attack from the Moon, a good article by Dwayne A. Day…
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/848/1
Heinlein’s ghost (part 1)
From one of the lead characters in Destination Moon..
[[[“There is absolutely no way to stop an attack from outer space. The first country that can use the Moon for the launching of missiles will control the Earth. That, gentlemen, is the most important military fact of this century.”]]]
The film you recall was made in 1948 and helped shaped thinking on space flight as it was intended to….
Dwane A. Day who wrote the article goes on…
[[[Heinlein did not invent this justification on his own. Barnes’ explanation was an idea that was clearly in vogue in the late 1940s. Science fiction writer G. Edward Pendray wrote in 1946 that “Control of the moon in the interplanetary world of the atomic future could mean military control of our whole portion of the solar system.” In 1948 Collier’s magazine ran an article titled “Rocket Blitz From the Moon” featuring dramatic artwork of rockets blasting off from the Moon and a massive atomic explosion over Manhattan. Clearly people were thinking of the Moon in terms of strategic high ground. Seven years after Destination Moon, immediately after Sputnik, Air Force General Homer Boushey advocated using the Moon as a missile base. Heinlein’s 1966 novel The Moon is a Harsh Mistress relied upon a similar theme.]]]
Am I the only one who finds it amusing to see that Tom Matula relies on science fiction for policy guidance?
What a tool.
IF we’re going to include Heinlein’s interest, it’s probably worth recalling that in 1947-1949 Heinlein was still on the Left and was actively campaigning for a World Federation with an extra-national police force (the Patrol) that would control all atomic weapons.
So, if there’s something Evil about the idea, the guilt by association goes with The Nation and the like, not the Rebublicans and the military.
I suspect that a large number of those who thought, rightly or wrongly, that Apollo was important was because it was important for national defense.
Perhaps.
But what about the large (though minority) percentage who preferred Apollo to tax cuts? To deficit reduction? To medicare/education spending?
In every category listed Apollo was more important than the other choice to no less than FORTY percent of the people polled.
In the “Should the Gov’t fund Moon Trips” chart, support averages above 40% from 1961 to 1995. Curiously the lowest percentage of support comes during the time when we actually were sending folks to the moon.
In the “Percentage who believe spending should be cut” chart, “space” is never ranked the highest in peoples opinion of what should be cut. And since 1980 the percentage of people who think space spending should be cut has not exceeded 20%. That particular rating peaked from 1975-1979, oddly enough when we were not sending anyone into space at all other than the Apollo-Soyuz “dog and pony show”.
Seems to me that those charts strongly argue exactly the opposite of what Mr Launius believes they do.
No where did I say Heinlein worked for the Army.
You implied it, Tom, when you tried to defend your swipe at “Robert Heinlien [sic]” by posting a link to an Army study.
If you knew Heinlein had nothing to do with that study, why did you post a complete non sequitur?
At the time he was writing books like Starship Troopers and a few years later, the Moon is a Harsh Mistress. But at the time the U.S. military believed it was critical that the Moon, the high ground, not be “captured” by Soviets, a belief which drove decisions at the time. As a former member of the military he supported that belief and even help create it. Have you watched “Destination Moon” lately
There are so many mistakes here I hardly know where to begin.
You claimed that Apollo was somehow “preventing [the Soviet Union] from claiming the Moon.” Just as you’ve stated in the past that Constellation would prevent the Chinese from claiming the Moon.
Again, that’s a ridiculous notion. There’s no way a few Apollo landers could have defended the entire Moon — an area larger than North America — against Soviet landing craft. That would have required a major military force, which would have required frequent, low-cost access to space.
Heinlein understood that, despite your attempts to smear him. It is not a “silly notion” that “a military base on the Moon would be able to dominate the Earth,” any more than it’s a silly notion that a lunar base could mine platinum-group metals. The silly notion is your fixed idea that it’s possible to build such bases with Apollo-style hardware and Apollo-style launch costs.
In every category listed Apollo was more important than the other choice to no less than FORTY percent of the people polled.
No less than forty percent of the people preferred Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan. Do you think that was a close contest?
I would point out, per Gene DiGennaro’s comment, that the popularity of space-related toys tells us nothing about the degree of public support.
The space toys are what we wish NASA was.
No less than forty percent of the people preferred Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan. Do you think that was a close contest?
No, but is obvious to everyone other than you that we’re not discussing an election?
The graphs show only Apollo Vs other programs that would tend to be popular, IE everyone likes low taxes, debt reduction etc. most Americans even support a strong military, and in 1965 even federal aid for education and “poverty assistance” were popular. If the argument is that Apollo had little or no support, why the need to stack the deck against Apollo in these graphs by only picking popular programs/ideas to compare it to?
Probably too late for anyone to read this, but the motivation for “bombing” the earth from the moon in Heinlein’s “Harsh Mistress” was to achieve independence, not as a way of controlling what went on on the Earth.
He didn’t depict it as “high ground” other than to illustrate the difference in the relative gravity wells. And if you recall, it was “rocks” that were being tossed at Earth.
Starship Troopers, despite the bastardization of the movie, was more a discussion of earned citizenship, logistics, and patriotism. IMO.
For what it’s worth.
Rand Simberg,
[[[Am I the only one who finds it amusing to see that Tom Matula relies on science fiction for policy guidance?
What a tool.]]]
I see. Jules Verne, H.G. Wells, Arthur C. Clarke, Issac Asimov and Robert Heinlein had no influence on space policy… Really Rand, you need to read more space history, especially on what inspired many of the early rocket developers to get interested in space and how science fiction influenced their view of space development as well as the view of policy makers on space policy…
If you don’t understand what the Science Fiction community was selling in the 1940’s and 1950’s you will never understand the drivers of space policy during that era nor the environment space policy was developed in. And without that foundation you won’t understand what is going on today.
Edward Wright.
I see you are in full troll mode, twisting and retwisting everything posted. If you are not willing to discuss it rationally you should go over to Jeff’s troll pit at Space Politics…
Jules Verne, H.G. Wells, Arthur C. Clarke, Issac Asimov and Robert Heinlein had no influence on space policy…
I didn’t say that. I just said that you shouldn’t rely on science fiction for wisdom on military strategy. TMIAHM is a great book, but the bombarding earth with rocks from the moon thing doesn’t make any military sense, and as long as we continue to use expensive expendable rockets, the moon will never have any militarily strategic value for earth warfare (and probably not even when access gets cheap).
Bennett,
[[[Probably too late for anyone to read this, but the motivation for “bombing” the earth from the moon in Heinlein’s “Harsh Mistress” was to achieve independence, not as a way of controlling what went on on the Earth.]]]
True, but if you are able to destroy targets on Earth at will, including any major city or military base you want (recall what happened to Cheyenne Mountain in the story) without any defense or counter attack possible, you are in defacto control even if that is not your goal.
Rand Simberg,
[[[I didn’t say that. I just said that you shouldn’t rely on science fiction for wisdom on military strategy. ]]]
True, we wouldn’t today, but during the start of the Moon Race when Washington was in “headless chicken” mode they did take such science fiction ideas seriously. Just read the many articles in news magazines and major papers at the time. Or read up on the statements made in Congressional hearings, including the one I posted that LBJ made…. Project Horizon was not done as a joke, the folks involved were deadly serious about it and why it was needed.
If you don’t understand that you will never understand why Apollo played out the way it did. or how real impact the OST had on space development.
If you don’t understand that you will never understand why Apollo played out the way it did. or how real impact the OST had on space development.
I understand it quite well — I am writing a book on it.
The Nation article to which Charlie Martin linked (thanks) still has me scratching my head.
It was supposedly published 3 days after VJ Day, which would have been 9 days after Nagasaki, and 11 days after the public (and presumably The Nation) first learned of the atomic bomb. Yet the discussion deals with issues that didn’t reach the national stage until the 50s.
Was this much information available so soon after the attacks? And if so, how could anyone absorb both it and all of the events surrounding VJ Day? Not only absorb, but integrate it on a world scale to make sweeping predictions?
Without knowing more, I’d say Freda Kirchwey was either one of the most visionary person who ever lived, or she had a substantial inside track. I wonder if Oppenheimer had any contact with her during the Manhattan Project….?
Thomas Matula Says:
August 27th, 2010 at 8:05 am
“True, but if you are able to destroy targets on Earth at will, including any major city or military base you want (recall what happened to Cheyenne Mountain in the story) without any defense or counter attack possible, you are in defacto control even if that is not your goal.”
How is that different from having a terrestrial arsenal of thousands of thermonuclear bombs mounted on top of unstoppable ballistic missiles? Been there, done that.
Rand Simberg,
[[[If you don’t understand that you will never understand why Apollo played out the way it did. or how real impact the OST had on space development.
I understand it quite well — I am writing a book on it.]]]
Then I am sure you will be going into more depth on the links between science fiction and science policy at the time as you do your research on the political environment that both created Apollo and shaped its implementation. And if you need any research leads just let me know. I will be glad to help.
Bart,
[[[How is that different from having a terrestrial arsenal of thousands of thermonuclear bombs mounted on top of unstoppable ballistic missiles? Been there, done that.]]]
Its more difficult to stop giant rocks as Heinlein pointed out. Plus nukes launched from Earth are less effective against a lunar society dug in underground then against surface targets on the Earth, as Heinlein also argued in the book. Recall what happened to the Earth counter attack in the story.
MFK,
[[[The Nation article to which Charlie Martin linked (thanks) still has me scratching my head.
It was supposedly published 3 days after VJ Day, which would have been 9 days after Nagasaki, and 11 days after the public (and presumably The Nation) first learned of the atomic bomb. Yet the discussion deals with issues that didn’t reach the national stage until the 50s.]]]
It appears the writer was familiar with the work of H.G. Wells, which allowed them to quickly put the events in context.
http://www.thenation.com/article/when-hg-wells-split-atom
When H.G. Wells Split the Atom
Freda Kirchwey
This article appeared in the August 18, 1945 edition of The Nation.
[[[OF COURSE it was H.G. Wells who first perfected the atomic bomb and put it to work. And not only did he put it to work, demolishing most of the world’s capital cities and destroying governments, but then he got busy and built an entirely new society.]]]
Its more difficult to stop giant rocks as Heinlein pointed out. Plus nukes launched from Earth are less effective against a lunar society dug in underground then against surface targets on the Earth, as Heinlein also argued in the book. Recall what happened to the Earth counter attack in the story.
Sigh…
It was just a story.
Rand Simberg,
Hey, its Heinlein making the arguments, not me. And as the articles I linked to noted, there were many in the military and space policy in the 1950’s and 1960’s that had similar beliefs on the Moon’s military potential. Just read the articles and op-eds from that period. Or the Congressional testimony. And Heinlein often had exterior motives for his stories as noted regarding Starship Troopers.
Don’t shoot the messenger if the message pops one of your pet theories on the origins of Apollo. For better or worse, and as silly as it seems today, that was one of the fears many in policy had of the Soviets getting to the Moon first even if folks want to sweep it under the carpet now. Remember, when looking at how historical decisions were made you need to consider the environment and information available at the time of the decision, as well as the beliefs of those making it.
Hey, its Heinlein making the arguments, not me. And as the articles I linked to noted, there were many in the military and space policy in the 1950’s and 1960’s that had similar beliefs on the Moon’s military potential.
Yes, they were all mistaken. What’s your point? That you should continue to indulge yourself in the foolishness?
Rand,
The point was showing the mindset when the Apollo decision was made. And why public opinion was irrelevant to funding for it.
But you don’t seem to care about that and I don’t have time to responding as I need to get some policy briefings ready for next month… So continue to believe what you wish to about Apollo.
The point was showing the mindset when the Apollo decision was made.
The mindset when the Apollo decision was made is irrelevant to current policy, particularly to the degree that it was based on a flawed understanding of the military potential of the moon.