Apollo history discussion from SLS thread

[SunlitZelkova]

I wanted to reply but at that point it was becoming OT so I made this thread. Posts from the SLS thread can also be moved here since it looks like it is getting OT over there as well @adsii1970

Quote

Not really. As an American historian by trade, I can tell you he was very much into space exploration and even wanted to fully fund NASA even more than it was. His love of space and space exploration comes from a couple of things - he was an avid reader of what we now consider the "classic" authors of science fiction. To be quite honest, and from what we know about his interests in space exploration, if he were alive today, he would probably support the surge of private corporate development of space travel as a means to make it more practical and affordable.

I'm sure many a president, senator, and representative has had passion regarding spaceflight in their personal life. That doesn't automatically translate to policy action though.

That's not to say Kennedy would have somehow been worse. I just think it would have been similar to what Johnson did. Perhaps if JFK was more of a space advocate for personal reasons, it could be said Johnson was motivated by the economic benefits it brought to the south (including to Texas).

By the way, I'll bet Johnson would be on the side of SLS and against Commercial Crew if he were alive today lol.

Quote

JFK was fully behind Von Braun's vision of LEO stations being a permanent gateway to the Moon and beyond. Even some of the NASA historical archives support the view that had JFK been able to complete his first term, the Apollo program would not have abruptly ended (Apollo XX would have been the last mission, if the program ran to its conclusion). The Apollo missions were only a small part of what could have been. Had JFK lived, been elected for a second term, then it is quite possible the STS program would have been realized a full five years earlier than what it was. The sources you reference state that Congress lost interest because the American public lost interest. That may be true to a point; however, the continuance of Apollo and the successor, Skylab as done mainly in memory of JFK is not the "big reason." There were other much larger reasons the space program and those missions continued - but in an extremely abbreviated manner.

The issue with that theory is the assumption that the cancellation of Apollo 15, 19, and 20 was related to who was president in 64-68. It had to do with Congress' attitude after the Apollo 1 fire and who was president in 69-72. Apollo abruptly ended long after he would have had influence in decisions of the government.

I don't think Kennedy would have been any more enthusiastic for post-Apollo plans than Johnson was. Johnson still pushed for full funding of Apollo Applications even after the Apollo 1 fire made it untenable, and it still didn't get through beyond Skylab.

I think it could be said other factors played a role in NASA's existence and the path it took in the late 60s, but the factors at play in Apollo mainly related to JFK's memory, insofar as it was he who said the US would be the first to the Moon and do it before '69. If say, Johnson had made that declaration instead of him, no one would care about that goal when things started getting rough in the mid 60s.

Quote

Alas, and such as what it was with JFK's assassination, the presidency was passed off to LBJ - a man who was very anti-NASA and did much to cut back its budget since NASA is an executive branch agency. But NASA and America's space exploration efforts had a lot more enemies than LBJ. It also had a young but powerful senator, Walter Mondale (who, later, as Vice President under President Carter, would try to gut NASA and delay/de-fund the STS program), who was able to do a lot in Congress to cut the budget and restrict what NASA could do with its remaining budget.

LBJ was not "anti-NASA" at all. As mentioned earlier, he requested quadruple what Congress ultimately gave AAP in FY 1968. I don't think this really amounted to either anti-NASA sentiment or actions "to cut back its budget".

NASA themselves chose to cancel Apollo 20 in favor of using the Saturn V to launch Skylab. Congress did cut the budget, but they didn't play much of a role in what NASA decided to do. The responsibility for those decisions fell on the Nixon administration.

------

Sources-

https://www.whitehousehistory.org/lyndon-b-johnson-forgotten-champion-of-the-space-race

https://www.texasstandard.org/stories/why-apollo-11-wouldnt-have-happened-without-lyndon-johnson/

------

I think Apollo could not have been saved. It was just too expensive for the government to be doing. At best, maybe Skylab could have survived into the Shuttle era by ordering a second batch of Saturn IBs and more CSMs.

Of course, the only other way might have been had the Soviets landed first. The US might have continued Apollo just to match them. But an expansive lunar program wasn't feasible for them either for their own allotted, far more political (and thus OT) reasons.

[Vanamonde]

Some comments removed. Discussions of politics never end well here, guys, which is why we've had to rule the subject off-limits. Yes, even if it's relevant.