Over at The Space Review today, Jeff Foust has a more detailed critique of the "Abbey-Lane" Report, a document that I didn't have a very high opinion of. Also, Craig Carberry has a rundown of the political prospects for NASA and the Vision for Space Exploration in the context of the 2008 elections. He repeats a popular myth, though--a common one:

...it was a Republican president who initiated the new vision, and back in 2000, the Republican platform called for “exploration of Mars and the rest of the solar system”. Presidents George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan also strongly supported NASA (although it was a Republican, Richard Nixon, that cancelled the Apollo program).

Nixon did not cancel the Apollo program. Lyndon Johnson did. Nixon could have, in theory, resurrected it, though the politics for it certainly weren't favorable, but he can't be blamed for the cancellation.

[Evening update]

Mark Whittington has further thoughts.

Apollo accomplished its program goals. The issue Nixon faced concerned what was to follow after Apollo. In 1972, Nixon chose the shuttle orbiter route.

"We mean to lead [the exploration of space], for the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace."
-JFK stating -the- program goal

Is Luna governed by our flag of freedom or by the U.N flag of evil?

This proves how political space is. Why check your facts and be accurate, when yo can blame a Republican. Especially that damned Nixon!!

It's so visible a blind man could see the bias.

"This proves how political space is. Why check your facts and be accurate, when yo can blame a Republican. Especially that damned Nixon!!

It's so visible a blind man could see the bias."

[sigh]

It seems that these days it is absolutely impossible for any subject to be discussed without it instantly becoming partisan--with one side or the other accusing their ideological opposites of distorting the truth. "Look! Evil partisan Democrats unfairly blaming a Republican!"

But Carberry is right and Simberg and Steve are wrong. Nixon did indeed shut down Apollo. His space advisory group during his transition (after the Nov 1968 election and before his inauguration) recommended continuing lunar exploration. His Space Task Group (headed by Spiro Agnew) in the summer of 1969 also recommended a vigorous human space program that included continuing lunar exploration. In both cases what they essentially had in mind were anywhere from two Apollo-type missions per year to a full-fledged lunar base. Those proposals were rejected by the White House in favor of the Space Shuttle program.

For the record, in August 1968 James Webb refused to approve signing new contracts for long lead time items for more Saturn V's. Nixon became president less than seven months later and could have reversed this decision. Instead, the Nixon White House chose to permanently end Saturn V production in 1970.

So rather than trying to find someone to blame (that means you too, Steve), take a few breaths, remove those vampire fangs, and do a little research. LBJ may have started the process by canceling some long lead time items, but Nixon's advisors recommended that he continue human lunar missions and Nixon's senior advisors rejected those proposals.

But Carberry is right and Simberg and Steve are wrong. Nixon did indeed shut down Apollo.

Nonsense, as your own description of events shows.

For the record, in August 1968 James Webb refused to approve signing new contracts for long lead time items for more Saturn V's. Nixon became president less than seven months later and could have reversed this decision. Instead, the Nixon White House chose to permanently end Saturn V production in 1970.

Exactly. In other words, contra Carberry (and you) Johnson shut the program down, not Nixon. At worst, Nixon was guilty of not resurrecting it (as was every president since). I'm no Nixon fan, but I am a fan of accurate history.

I can see why you'd post such illogic anonymously, though--I'd be embarrassed to have my name attached to it, too.

"I can see why you'd post such illogic anonymously, though--I'd be embarrassed to have my name attached to it, too."

My boss thinks I'm working.

"Exactly. In other words, contra Carberry (and you) Johnson shut the program down, not Nixon."

Nope. That was simply a decision to not buy more long lead items for the Saturn V. It was up to the next president to write the next budget, and despite recommendations to the contrary from his advisors, Nixon did not include further lunar exploration in his budget. In fact, he canceled Apollos 18-20. And the Saturn V production line was not closed until 1970. In essence, the decision about Apollo was deferred in August 1968, but was decided later.

Although, to be precise, it was not Nixon or Johnson making these decisions. The decisions were made by their proxies.

That was simply a decision to not buy more long lead items for the Saturn V.

I fail to see any significant distinction between that decision, and shutting down a program that required same. I also fail to see how one can blame Nixon, but not Johnson, for ending the Apollo program. Carberry's statement was extremely misleading, if not outright false.

Saying "Nixon cancelled Apollo" is like saying your local theater manager "cancelled Star Wars" because he stopped showing it at the end of its original run (and even held it over a few additional weeks).

Apollo was never intended as a permanent program. Von Braun may have intended that, but the politicians certainly didn't. The original goal was to land *a* man on the Moon and return him safely to Earth -- nothing more.

Nixon didn't "cancel" Apollo, he simply let it come to an end -- after holding it over for a few encore missions. That's probably more than Kennedy would have done.

Yes, Nixon "could" have extended Apollo longer -- if Congress agreed (and they might not have) -- but NASA told him they'd rather spend the limited budget on the Shuttle. So, he supported what NASA wanted.

Edward Wright: When Apollo had some political trouble in 1963 I remember seeing a TV program with John Glenn pushing the line that Apollo wasn't just about landing a man on the moon but was a transport system giving the United States access to all of Earth-Moon space. Certainly there was lots of planning towards this end for the next few years if the AIAA journals of the time were anything to go by. Then decisions were made to curtail the program before the first landing.
History may rank this as one of the worst decisions ever made by the hunman race.

Did G. H. W. Bush cancel the shuttle orbiter program or the B-2 program? Did Reagan kill the the A-10 program?

There is a difference between procurement and operations (although admittedly for non-reusable systems the gap is a little shorter).

> When Apollo had some political trouble in 1963 I remember seeing a TV program
> with John Glenn pushing the line that Apollo was a transport system giving the United States access to all
> of Earth-Moon space.

I'm sure Glenn meant "token representatives of the United States."

> History may rank this as one of the worst decisions ever made by the hunman race.

I suppose that depends on who writes the history books, but the worst decision was to start Apollo. It was Apollo that established NASA as "The Space Agency" rather than an NACA-type organization that would do research applicable to commercial and military vehicles. (Mercury had already started NASA down that road, but it was not yet irrevocable.) Apollo was largely responsible for killing the X-15, Dyna-Soar, the lifting body programs -- everything that might have led to real space capabilities.

Both Johnson and Nixon share the blame... with Johnson coming out better simply because he kept the budgets funded that enabled a Moon landing within a decade. Beyond that, Johnson really had no vision on what to do as a follow on to Apollo (though NERVA was funded throughout his administration). Did any of Johnson's budgets begin the funding of Skylab? Nixon accepted the "space pragmatic" crowd's argument to build the shuttle and a space station (Skylab). VP Agnew recommended going on to Mars, but Nixon and his advisors canned that.

Rand - agree with you that Johnson started the "drift" in space endeavors/funding, but Nixon was worse... because he made the "drift" worse.

This is pretty much the dumbest argument I've ever seen on here.
I'm not even gonna get involved!

Edward Wright: I suppose that depends on who writes the history books, but the worst decision was to start Apollo. It was Apollo that established NASA as "The Space Agency" rather than an NACA-type organization that would do research applicable to commercial and military vehicles. (Mercury had already started NASA down that road, but it was not yet irrevocable.) Apollo was largely responsible for killing the X-15, Dyna-Soar, the lifting body programs -- everything that might have led to real space capabilities.

You wouldn't know it now but that was quite the debate back in the day. JFK campaigned on a bogus missile gap and parlayed the success of that campaign ploy into the Apollo showboat.

A ballsy (for a defense contractor) comment from Boeing:

"In November 1957 a potential leap in technology was conceived with the Boeing X-20 Dyna Soar. Designed to be launched into orbit atop a Titan II expendable booster, the program would have enabled the U.S. Air Force to operate a manned spaceplane during the late 1960s. Dyna Soar actually reached the full-scale engineering mockup stage before it was canceled in December 1963 - a major blunder for American techno-logical leadership in space."

X Philes

Poking at history is important, if only so you can see the mistakes you made and avoid those in the future.

Still - does anyone else wish there was more going on 'up there' we could poke nits and toss brickbats at?

A visual
comment.

Technically, I was mistaken. I should have been a little more accurate (particularly since I have a heavy background in historical research).

As for political bias...
"It's so visible a blind man could see the bias."
Well, not quite. For the record, I am a Republican. Quite honestly, I thought the article may have been a bit too pro-GOP. I never imagined that I'd be accused of being a knee-jerk Liberal.

I wasn't really as interested in your political affilation, Chris, as in correcting what is a very common error in the history of the Apollo program, by many of a range of political persuasions. I myself am neither a Republican or Democrat.