posted 11-03-2005 09:34 PM               

The webcast and transcript of our visit with Ed David, science advisor to Richard Nixon from 1970-1973, are now available online. ...

"The interesting aspect of all this was the reason for considering canceling 16 and 17 in the first place. That reason was essentially political. It focused on the timing of those two launches vis-a-vis the 1972 presidential election. Apollo 17 was slated to launch about a month before the election day, early in November, 1972. The big worry by the political forces in the White House was that if there was an accident of Apollo 17, it would bear heavily on the election outcome negatively. I suggested that Apollo be postponed, however, until December after the election, a month after it, and that Apollo 16 was too early to have much influence on the outcome, we did win that day for the final two moon missions."

posted 11-04-2005 09:49 AM               

I don't think the JFK has ever in it's entire existence even sailed into the Pacific to begin with. She was destined for service in the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean. Just the usual propaganda of hate generated by the the usual band of historical revisionists... after all when facts don't fit your agenda, simply make up your own that do.

posted 11-04-2005 11:11 AM               

Now, I don't think NASA has earned the 'blank check' funding that some others believe it deserves, but the knee-jerk reaction the 'hippie' sentiment I described is why politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike, take the sides that they do.

Besides, if you really want to demonize a US politician regarding the space program, set your sights off of Nixon, and focus them on Walter Mondale...

posted 11-04-2005 12:53 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cfreeze79:
...focus them on Walter Mondale.

---

An early foe of the space shuttle program was U.S. Sen. Walter Mondale, who in 1972 called it an "enormous federal boondoggle" and charged: "President Nixon's decision to proceed with the development of the space shuttle is another example of perverse priorities and colossal waste in government spending. There is expert evidence that we can achieve the same scientific and utilitarian goals in space at only a fraction of the billions to be spent on the shuttle.

posted 11-05-2005 05:03 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aztecdoug:
I don't think the JFK has ever in it's entire existence even sailed into the Pacific to begin with.

---

posted 11-05-2005 06:03 PM               

In looking further, the JFK was commissioned on Sept. 7, 1968, and her maiden voyage was to the Mediterranean Sea, where she made another seven deployments to this part of the world in the 1970s due to the situation in the middle east. That's a long way from being available for recovery duty in the Pacific, politics or no politics.

posted 11-05-2005 06:37 PM               

Had a session about planning overall for Apollo XI... Met with Frank Borman... Also all cranked up about playing "Star Spangled Banner" when flag placed on moon. Borman opposed, because astronauts would lose three minutes at attention, and possible adverse reaction about overnationalism.

On July 20:

...Borman, P and I watched on little TV in little office. When Neil hit the surface, P clapped and said "Hooray."

So during the moon landing Nixon was thinking about a Kennedy, just a different brother.

posted 11-05-2005 06:38 PM               

She was in the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Dry Dock in July of '69 along with the U.S.S. America and the U.S.S. Franklin D. Roosevelt.

posted 11-06-2005 11:14 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by carmelo:
...the worst enemy of US manned space program was Richard M. Nixon.

---

The bizarre thing was that even in 1969, although it was the United States accomplishing the feat, some viewed the sitting President's involvement as improper. The New York Times actually ran an editorial on July 20 calling the scheduled telephone call to the Moon "unseemly" and of questionable taste. President Nixon made sure that LBJ was at the launch, a nod to the former administration.

As to the cancellation of Apollo, the easiest truth may be that reality finally caught up and over took the dream of a martyred president. Some points to consider:

• we won the race
  
• an absence of competition (the Soviets shifted their attention to duration missions)
  
• the war in Viet Nam was an enormous drain on the economy (and not going particularly well)
  
• for those who forget, an Arab Oil Embargo
  
• likewise, an economy in such a difficult position that the President put in place wage and price controls
  
• lunar missions were, despite the amazing success rate, a very dangerous activity with a high probability of accident or failure
  
• no budgetary support for additional missions from a Democratic-controlled Congress
  
• a scientific community that did not fully support manned missions
  
• little perceived value or return from the program

posted 11-07-2005 02:06 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by carmelo:
And a President not really interested to space programs.

---

Richard Nixon liked space flight. "I can remember Nixon coming off a phone conversation with the astronauts," John Ehrlichman recalls.

"And you know, they are up on the moon, and [Nixon was] as high as a kite. He got a big charge out of them. Then when the astronauts would come to the White House for dinner afterwards, he would always be enormously stimulated by contact with these folks. He liked heroes. He thought it was good for this country to have heroes.

Like other presidents before and since, he basked in the reflected glory of spacefarers. When the crew of Apollo 11 returned from the first landing on the moon, he was aboard the aircraft carrier USS Hornet to greet them. He then used this triumph to gain diplomatic advantage, for after hailing the achievement, he set out on a nine-day world tour that took him to capitals in Southeast Asia, India, Pakistan, and Europe. Significantly, he had planned this tour well in advance of the Apollo 11 flight, anticipating its safe return. "The President had rather daringly pegged his trip to the success of this operation," Tom Paine later remarked.

"Had he gone out to the Pacific to be present at the splashdown and had there been some kind of an accident, it might have harmed considerably his ability then to have the successful trip, which was his first trip abroad as President. I was scared to death that we would have a fiasco or even a tragedy. We just wondered whether he knew the odds as well as we did. Well, fortunately Apollo 11 was a success, and in the ensuing world trip, everywhere the President went, the only thing about the United States that anybody wanted to talk about was of course the lunar landing."

Yet while Nixon willingly embraced Apollo, which he had inherited from Lyndon Johnson, he took his time in committing the nation to new initiatives, whether in space or in other areas of technology. Between 1960 and 1980, such civilian initiatives were largely a province of Democrats: Kennedy and Johnson with Apollo and NASA, Jimmy Carter with his ambitious synthetic-fuels program in the late 1970s. When George Shultz presented Nixon with NASA's plan for the space shuttle and urged him to accept it, he did.

posted 11-07-2005 02:57 PM            

Nixon delighted in being in the center of Apollo 11 — an event already bought and paid for long before his tenure. His work with Borman, Collins, Anders and others leaves little doubt he held individual astronauts in very high regard, almost hero-worship.

He also did his part (via action or inaction is debatable) to allow budgets to stay so low that NASA entered the next decade without a viable manned space program, and unrealistically low funds to fund the shuttle. It may have been unavoidable given the political climate of the time, but that is what happened.

posted 11-07-2005 03:13 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cfreeze79:
"We need to stop wasting money on those 'pie-in-the-sky' projects with no direct benefits here on earth..."

---

I believe the space station's potential benefits — which I recognize — do not stand the test. I believe we must terminate funding for this program. We cannot spend nearly $100 billion of the taxpayers money to fund the space station and then say that we do not have enough money to put cops on the beat, clean our environment, and ensure that our children get the best education possible."

posted 11-07-2005 04:24 PM               

It shows Vice President Nixon and the Mercury astronauts on the steps of the Capitol.

In the back, left to right, are Carpenter, Schirra, Grissom, Slayton, and Glenn. Seated in the front row are Cooper, Nixon and Shepard — all three men holding a model of the Mercury Redstone (or something). Nixon, in profile, is looking directly at a serious Glenn, who looks down at the model rocket. Shepard, smiling, is looking at Nixon. Everyone but Cooper is dressed in a dark suit.

On the back of the framed photo, Rene Carpenter has written the following (the ellipses are in the original):

Uncertain of this date ... believe it to be mid-to fall of 1959. President Eisenhower not feeling well and the V.P. substituted for the presentation. He was warm, charming, almost awestruck ... guided them around ... was reluctant to see them go. This was among the first of the "goodwill" trips to Congress for political favor--they detested the word astronaut and preferred pilot — as they quietly corrected the starstruck. Their hair still clipped to the scalp — in an early version of the hi fade — no new clothes yet — and John Glenn determined to wear his bow tie ... Scott uneasy with the attention — but all on their best behavior!

Does anyone know how many VP Nixon and Mercury 7 pics were shot? I have seen just this one.

Editor's note: The same photo, but without inscription:

posted 11-07-2005 09:59 PM               

The space program broke down due to a failure of political will. NASA did a lousy job selling exploration as something of value.

Lots of things went wrong and they're clear in retrospect.

posted 11-08-2005 06:19 PM            

With the cancellation of the original Apollo 15 and Apollo 19 in October of 1970, the new schedule for the J missions became Apollo 15 in July 1971, Apollo 16 in March 1972 and Apollo 17 in December 1972. I recall that NASA made a statement that a longer interval was being used between moon landings to allow the science teams more time to evaluate the scientific results of the landings.

Apollo 16 was later delayed by a month until April 1972. I'm not certain if Skylab could have been ready in the fall of 1972 or needed be slipped until 1973 regardless of when the Apollo mission were flown.

posted 11-11-2005 06:38 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by KC Stoever:
...all three men holding a model of the Mercury Redstone (or something).

---

But the payload seems odd and doesn't look like a typical Mercury capsule. It's hard to tell for sure because Shepard's hand is gripping the model at that point. For one thing the payload isn't dark like a Mercury capsule. But what else could it be?

posted 11-11-2005 02:40 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Has the suggested election-driven cancellation of Apollo 16 and Apollo 17 been reported before?

---

The task of defending NASA's budget fell to George Low, the acting administrator. In October [1970] Edward David, the president's science adviser, asked Low to evaluate the relative priorities of Apollo and Skylab in the light of further possible cutbacks. Low defended both programs, saying that "to reduce or constrain the scientific returns from Apollo by dropping one or more missions would involve very great losses." But canceling Skylab was even less palatable: "On balance, the weight of evidence seems to favor Skylab over Apollo if a choice must be made." The scientific returns from the single Skylab mission would probably exceed those from an additional lunar landing. America had already benefited from its Apollo investment, whereas canceling Skylab would provide no return. Finally, Skylab could lead to more new options with less risk than Apollo.

David was asking Low to consider reductions in an already austere budget. In a period of 6% inflation, NASA had sought a modest increase to $3.7 billion. The Office of Management and Budget had countered with a $3.3-billion offer, which forced large reductions in the Space Shuttle and nuclear engine programs. Neither Apollo nor Skylab suffered serious cuts; their combined loss of $50 million amounted to less than 5% of the requested amount. Nevertheless, the loss could be absorbed only by slowing the pace of operations. The Office of Manned Space Flight set new launch dates of December 1972 and March 1973 for Apollo 17 and Skylab respectively. When Kennedy Space Center indicated that such closely spaced launches would require overtime, Skylab was moved back another month. The budget decision in late 1970 marked the last major change in Skylab's schedule.