Moon key to space future?

There's ample reason to believe that. He was willing to spend what it
took to beat the Russians to the moon, but no more.


Its fairly easy to put words into JFKs mouth, he can't say otherwise. The same
can be said of Ronald Reagan in his present condition.

Tom

He's stating clearly that his main purpose is dominance, not excitement
or interest. To dominate, it's necessary only to do more than the
other guy.

Maybe, he was just a cynical politician. Perhaps he never intended to finish
the Apollo Program, just start it and keep it going past his reelection and
then do whatever the hell he wanted. LBJ tooks the program past whatever JFK
intended, as he didn't really want to send people to the Moon. That was just a
gimmick to burnish his "Cold Warrior" Credentials. Same with the Vietnam War.
LBJ misunderstood on both accounts, he has a poor ear for cynacism, and
couldn't tell when JFK was speaking only for public consumption and didn't
really mean it. is that what your trying to say?

Tom

"Theodore W. Hall" wrote in message ...
william mook wrote:

QUESTION: Mr. President, there have been published reports that the
Russians are having second thoughts about landing a man on the moon.
If they should drop out of the race to the moon, would we still
continue with our moon program; or secondly, if they should wish to
cooperate with us in a joint mission to the moon, would we consider
agreeing to that, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, in the first place, we don't know whether the
Russians are-- what their plans may be. What we are interested in is
what their capabilities are. While I have seen the statement of Mr.
Lovell about what he thinks the Russians are doing, his information is
not final. Their capacity is substantial; there is every evidence that
they are carrying on a major campaign and diverting greatly needed
resources to their space effort. With that in mind, I think that we
should continue. It may be that our assumption or the prediction in
this morning's paper that they are not going to the moon might be
wrong a year from now, and are we going to divert ourselves from our
effort in an area where the Soviet Union has a lead, is making every
effort to maintain that lead, in an area which could affect our
national security as well as great peaceful development? I think we
ought to go right ahead with our own program and go to the moon before
the end of this decade.

To me, this says pretty clearly that he doesn't believe the published
reports of the Soviets backing out. It's a secretive society, and
the reports could be a ruse to put us off guard. For that reason, we
have to press on.

Precisely.


The point of the matter always has been not only of our excitement or
interest in being on the moon;

[because he's "not that interested in space"]

Total disagreement here. Plainly he's saying we're becoming a space
faring society because its vitally important to our future as a
growing vital society, NOT for entertainment.


... ... but the capacity to dominate space,
which would be demonstrated by a moon flight, I believe, is essential
to the United States as a leading free world power. That is why I am
interested in it and that is why I think we should continue, and I
would be not diverted by a newspaper story.

He's stating clearly that his main purpose is dominance, not excitement
or interest.

Dominance in what? Clearly dominance in a new endeavour for mankind -
to borry JFKs phrase. Obviously JFK believes it vitally important for
America to be first in space development. Plainly JFK supports a
broad range of programs which he believes will serve our nation well
going into the future. Things like nuclear rockets to take us to the
ends of the solar system (his phrase).

To dominate, it's necessary only to do more than the
other guy.

Actually, JFK said to be first means we must do all we can reasonably
do. Obviously, you're no sportsman. In any contest all you must do
is beat the other guy. That doesn't mean you do not do the best you
can.

Having landed on the moon and demonstrated dominance, he
would have had no reason to go beyond that until the Soviets caught up.

I know *you* say this. But, where did JFK say this?

There's another factor here that no one has mentioned yet: term limits.
Kennedy would have been out of office by July '69, in any event. At
that point, it's doubtful that he would have had much influence on
space policy, whatever his interest.

JFK was assasinated before the Apollo 1 fire. Prior to that fire NASA
was to land on the moon sometime in 1967 or 68. The Apollo 1 fire and
the retrofits that followed it delayed the program 18 months or so
according to those who worked on the project.

Now this is controversial, because the LEM wasn't ready until the
Spring of 1969. And the LEM wasn't affected by the Apollo 1 fire.

Even so, Apollo 8 orbited the moon in December of 1968. And, some at
NASA felt that we were ready for a circum-lunar flight in summer of
'68 - but foot dragging by NASA Administrator delayed a decision to
launch.

So, your first point about JFK not being President when the lunar
landings occured, wasn't in the cards in 1963, and even with the
Apollo 1 fire - he might still have been President for the first
circumlunar flight.

The other points you make are illogical. Plainly the President cannot
affect budgets when not in office. The point we are discussing is a
strong commitment to 4% of GDP rather than dropping down to 1/2% GDP.
You have said or inferred nothing that suggests JFK would reduce his
commitment to space. Sorry.


LBJ, JFK's successor, was also hawkish about space dominance:

Actually, he sat down the Robert McNamara following the Kennedy
assasination and submitted a budget that cut out or cut down a lot of
basic research supported by JFK. Things like nuclear propulsion,
reusable boosters, stuff like that.

I would say LBJ was fully committed to a moon program while JFK was
fully committed to US becoming a space faring society that makes use
of new resources and capacities in space to change its very way of
life.

Later, Nixon reduced the moon program to the shuttle program. Carter
reduced flight rates. Reagan tried to tie military interest to space
launch with SDI. Bush 1, proposed his SEI - and return to the moon,
which NASA shot in the head with $100 billion cost and 20 year
delivery. Clinton cared little about the space program. Bush II is
proposing this week, cautiously in response to the Chinese
achievements and announcements, a return to the moon.

"One can predict with confidence that failure to master space means
being second-best in the crucial arena of our Cold War world. In
the eyes of the world, first in space means first, period; second
in space is second in everything."

-- Lyndon B. Johnson

Walter A. McDougall. _The Heavens and the Earth: A Political
History of the Space Age_, page 320. Basic Books, 1985.

But LBJ didn't prevent the steep cuts in the NASA budget during his
term in office.

That's right. He sat down with McNamara in December of 1963 and
slashed big pieces of the space budget. His focus was to retain the
moon-program to honor the fallen President, while gutting everything
that would carry us into space in a meaningful way.

I see no reason to believe that JFK would have made
much difference.

You keep repeating this statement but so far have provided no reason
or rationale for it. Plainly JFK was committed to space travel as the
next arena of human endeavour. Obviously JFK wanted the US to lead in
this arena. Clealry JFK provided adequate funds to achieve this
vision (Nuclear rockets, deep space mission planning, reusable
launchers, infrastructure funding, etc.)

On 05 Dec 2003 16:52:03 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(TKalbfus) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

There's ample reason to believe that. He was willing to spend what it
took to beat the Russians to the moon, but no more.


Its fairly easy to put words into JFKs mouth, he can't say otherwise. T

I'm saying what he said.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

william mook wrote:

The point of the matter always has been not only of our
excitement or interest in being on the moon;

[because he's "not that interested in space"]

Total disagreement here. Plainly he's saying we're becoming a
space faring society because its vitally important to our future
as a growing vital society, NOT for entertainment.

Well, as you say, "total disagreement". Plainly he's saying it's
"for international political reasons" and not just for our own
self-fulfillment. Otherwise, it's not worth the expense:

The president asked Webb if he considered the moon landing
NASA's top priority.

"No sir, I do not," Webb replied. "I think it is one of the
top priority programs."

Kennedy responded that it should be the top priority.

"This is important for political reasons, international
political reasons,"

[snip]

"Otherwise we shouldn't be spending this kind of money,
because I am not that interested in space,"

[snip]

"... we're talking about fantastic expenditures," Kennedy
said. "We've wrecked our budget, and all these other domestic
programs, and the only justification for it, in my opinion,
is to do it in the time element I am asking."

I've snipped a bit for brevity. To me, the snipped parts do nothing
to refute his general disinterest in space per se. On the contrary,
they seem to reinforce it.

( http://www.jfklibrary.org/newsletter...002_14-15.html , for
those just tuning in. Read it yourself and draw your own
conclusions. )


Having landed on the moon and demonstrated dominance, he
would have had no reason to go beyond that until the Soviets
caught up.

I know *you* say this. But, where did JFK say this?

He implies it here. His overriding concern is to beat the Soviets,
in a certain time element:

"the only justification for it, in my opinion, is to do it in
the time element I am asking."


JFK was assasinated before the Apollo 1 fire. Prior to that fire
NASA was to land on the moon sometime in 1967 or 68. The
Apollo 1 fire and the retrofits that followed it delayed the
program 18 months or so according to those who worked on the
project.

So? Do you mean to imply that the fire and subsequent delay would
not have occurred if JFK had remained president? Non sequitur.

Kennedy made his famous speech just 20 days after the first US
manned suborbital space flight. At that early date, it was
unknowable whether the first lunar landing would be in '67, or '69,
or '71. There was no specific plan and only a gross estimate of the
eventual cost.


The other points you make are illogical. Plainly the President
cannot affect budgets when not in office.

Then I guess you share my "illogic".


The point we are discussing is a strong commitment to 4% of GDP
rather than dropping down to 1/2% GDP. You have said or inferred
nothing that suggests JFK would reduce his commitment to space.

What Kennedy might or might not have done, if he had lived, and if
he had been reelected (which was by no means certain), is
speculation. Nothing can be proven. We can only look at who said
what to who, and how history played itself out, and try to construct
plausible alternative histories.

Whatever Kennedy's commitment, he would have been out of office in
January 1969 at the latest. Very possibly, he would have been out
of office by January 1965, depending on how voters weighed his
performance regarding the Bay of Pigs, the Missile Crisis, and his
spending 4% of GDP on NASA.

Whatever Kennedy's commitment, it's Congress that ultimately passes
the budget.


LBJ, JFK's successor, was also hawkish about space dominance:

Actually, he sat down the Robert McNamara following the Kennedy
assasination and submitted a budget that cut out or cut down a
lot of basic research supported by JFK.

And that was despite his (LBJ's) earlier statement that "first in
space means first, period; second in space is second in everything."
Plainly, politicians often make decisions that go contrary to their
public pronouncements. Talk is cheap.

What would JFK have done when confronted with the "budget wrecking"
costs of that research? We can only guess. Why should I believe
that he would have acted any differently (contrary to his earlier
public statements)?


I would say LBJ was fully committed to a moon program while JFK
was fully committed to US becoming a space faring society that
makes use of new resources and capacities in space to change its
very way of life.

You're free to say that.


He [LBJ] sat down with McNamara in December of 1963 and slashed
big pieces of the space budget. His focus was to retain the
moon-program to honor the fallen President, while gutting
everything that would carry us into space in a meaningful way.

And there's simply no way of knowing whether or not Kennedy himself
would have done the same thing, when confronted with the political
and economic realities of taxes and expenditures.


I see no reason to believe that JFK would have made much
difference.

You keep repeating this statement but so far have provided no
reason or rationale for it.

I don't need to "prove" anything, and don't claim to. As a juror
in the court of public opinion, I'm simply not convinced that JFK
was some extraordinary visionary or more politically committed to
a space faring society than other contemporary "pro-space"
politicians, such as his own Vice President. (If you don't believe
LBJ was pro-space, why not? After all, he said he was.) And, if
JFK was alone with his vision and commitment, what difference would
that have made?

If JFK had lived, would he have been reelected? Hard to say. Would
he have defended the NASA budget against critics, both in and out of
his own party, who saw the entire manned space enterprise as a
horrific waste of money? Hard to say. Had he chosen to defend it,
would he have prevailed? Impossible to say.

The burden of proof is on those who claim to know how much better
it would be for our space faring society if Kennedy had lived. I'm
not convinced that it would have made much difference in that
regard. I mean no disrespect to the man personally. I neither
demonize nor worship him.

I've said about all I have to say on this. I'm not much concerned
with changing anyone else's opinion. I'm simply stating my own.
Kennedy was a Cold War politician; the moon had propaganda value.

--

Ted Hall

"Theodore W. Hall" wrote in message ...
william mook wrote:

The point of the matter always has been not only of our
excitement or interest in being on the moon;

[because he's "not that interested in space"]

Total disagreement here. Plainly he's saying we're becoming a
space faring society because its vitally important to our future
as a growing vital society, NOT for entertainment.

Well, as you say, "total disagreement". Plainly he's saying it's
"for international political reasons" and not just for our own
self-fulfillment. Otherwise, it's not worth the expense:

The president asked Webb if he considered the moon landing
NASA's top priority.

"No sir, I do not," Webb replied. "I think it is one of the
top priority programs."

Kennedy responded that it should be the top priority.

"This is important for political reasons, international
political reasons,"

[snip]

This is from the recently released tape?

How do you explain from the Q&A you posted on 12/05 where Kennedy says
that space, "could affect our national security as well as great
peaceful development" - Clearly, 'great peaceful development' refers
to the economic development of space based resources and assets going
well beyond merely landing on the moon for geopolitical reasons.

"Otherwise we shouldn't be spending this kind of money,
because I am not that interested in space,"

[snip]

This is the original tape which I've explained was of a meeting after
receiving NASA's supplemental budget. JFK was positioning himself to
get the budget reduced - as I've explained above.

Clearly you are attempting to fool us into believing that Kennedy's
argument behind the scenes with NASA and others positining himself to
lower the high price of the supplemental budget should wrongly tell us
something about his lack of larger commitment to space. This won't
wash.

"... we're talking about fantastic expenditures," Kennedy
said. "We've wrecked our budget, and all these other domestic
programs, and the only justification for it, in my opinion,
is to do it in the time element I am asking."

I've snipped a bit for brevity.

You repeat the same things you've already repeated in the hopes that
by repeating misinformation people will buy it. Clearly you're
attempting to fool us into believing something that isn't true.

Setting aside the recently released tape which I've explained was from
a meeting held following NASA's supplemental budget for the moon
program. What else have you got?

Kennedy in these statements positioned himself in that meeting in a
way to get at a reduced cost for this supplemental budget. This says
nothing about his longer term vision which is clearly documented in
other material. Nothing you've said or dredged up counters this
interpretation.

To me, the snipped parts do nothing
to refute his general disinterest in space per se.

You are attempting to assasinate Kennedy again. Kennedy was clearly
interested in space as a great opportunity for America's future. In
the day Kennedy privately positioned himself in meetings to get at a
lower price as I've described before. Think again of buying a car.
To get a lower price you've got to position yourself as someone who is
willing to leave the negotiation - no matter how much you want the
car. You are taking the sound bites from this negotiation and trying
to fool us into believing Kennedy never wanted the car and arguing
wrongly that he had no larger vision - all the while ignoring powerful
statements of his vision.

On the contrary,
they seem to reinforce it.

Only if you parse and mix statements out of context. Taken in context
JFKs commitment to space travel is clear. JFK believes very strongly
that space
"could affect our national security as well as great peaceful
development"

( http://www.jfklibrary.org/newsletter...002_14-15.html , for
those just tuning in. Read it yourself and draw your own
conclusions. )

And search the JFK library website for 'moon' and read all the other
stuff that comes up as well - before drawing the wrong conclusion from
limited materials taken out of context.

Remember the tape Ted would have us believe tells the whole story
about Kennedy's commitment to space - was, as the librarians tell us,
recorded in a meeting held after JFK received the supplemental budget
for the moon program by NASA.

This meeting was held specifically to get a lower price. As I
mentioned before, to get a low price you've got to position yourself
in a way that lets you leave the negotiation. Think about buying a
new car. You may want the car very badly. But you don't let the
person selling it know that. You tell them what's wrong with the car,
that you can get along without it and so forth. Same here. Kennedy's
telling NASA privately what he can do without the supplemental budget
in an effort to get it lowered. Of course while doing that, he says
some things that folks like Ted can take out of context and use it to
assasinate JFK's commitment to space development.

But remember, look at the Q&A Ted himself quotes on Dec 05 in this
thread. Here Kennedy says space, "could affect our national security
as well as great peaceful development" What great peaceful
development could he be talking about? Clearly he's talking about the
economic development of space based assets and resources - the opening
of the great space frontier for future generations.

Having landed on the moon and demonstrated dominance, he
would have had no reason to go beyond that until the Soviets
caught up.

I know *you* say this. But, where did JFK say this?

He implies it here.

No. As the librarian says of the tape, it was of a meeting held after
JFK received the supplemental budget from NASA following his moon
speech. What would you expect to be said at such a meeting? Clearly
he's telling his cabinet he won't be held hostage by NASA. You quoted
a Q&A exchange at a Press Conference where Kennedy says of space,
"could affect our national security as well as great peaceful
development" - Plainly the great peaceful development JFK speaks of is
economic development for the benefit of US citizens.


His overriding concern is to beat the Soviets,
in a certain time element:

Yes, that was an overriding concern. Now, WHY is it an overrding
concern? Cleearly because JFK sees that space, "could affect our
national security as well as great peaceful development"

"the only justification for it, in my opinion, is to do it in
the time element I am asking."

This is from the tape we've already dismissed as being a source of
statements JFK made to position himself in a way that allows him to
get at a lower price. The supplemental budget was far in excess of
what vonBraun told him would be likely. He even refers to this a
little in a comment made at another time following this meeting where
he calls for everyone to make their best efforts and not artificially
inflate costs.

JFK was assasinated before the Apollo 1 fire. Prior to that fire
NASA was to land on the moon sometime in 1967 or 68. The
Apollo 1 fire and the retrofits that followed it delayed the
program 18 months or so according to those who worked on the
project.

So? Do you mean to imply that the fire and subsequent delay would
not have occurred if JFK had remained president? Non sequitur.

Why are you complaining? Obviously, you've created a non-sequitor by
taking a tangential view of an answer I made to another tangential
question. Plainly you seek to bury any real conversation in a pile of
minutiae that has no meaning. So, lets get back to the point. I say
that had Kennedy been President two terms NASA's budget during that
period would have hovered around 4% GDP, and likely have remained
there for a number of years following his presidency. What actually
happened is Kennedy got killed, and Johnson cut back on a lot of
longer term programs, and the NASA budget dropped to about 1% of GDP,
and later, to 1/2% GDP. Plainly, had NASA's budget remained 4% to 5%
GDP over the last 40 years - our achievements in space would be quite
a bit different today than at present. Obviously, JFK would support
this level of commitment because he saw that space,"could affect our
national security as well as great peaceful development"

Kennedy made his famous speech just 20 days after the first US
manned suborbital space flight. At that early date, it was
unknowable whether the first lunar landing would be in '67, or '69,
or '71.

Talk about non-sequtors - so? Lets get back to what we were arguing
about shall we? Look, I say had Kennedy benn president over two terms
we would have avoided the Vietnam war, spent far more on cooperative
ventures like the Peace Corps - reduced covert activities that
destabilized freely elected governments - and spent far more on space
travel development. NASA would have remained at 4% to 5% of GDP and
not dropped to 1/2% of GDP.


There was no specific plan and only a gross estimate of the
eventual cost.

At this time, sure - depending on what you mean by these terms. So
what? JFK was clearly committed to large scale space development.
Wished to reintroduce Truman's policy of supporting freely elected
governments (rather than seeing in them a crisis of democracy)
withdrawing our support of strong man rule in places like the Middle
East - which is part of the reason Truman visited the White House
after Eisenhower during Kennedy's tenure - discussing the return of
Musadik in Iran - which would have dramatically changed the politics
of the Middle East, and avoided our present difficulties - but now I
digress!


The other points you make are illogical. Plainly the President
cannot affect budgets when not in office.

Then I guess you share my "illogic".

Nonsense. Your position is illogical. I do not share it.

Remember, we are disagreeing about what the nature of the space
program that would have been had JFK lived and served two terms.

I maintain he would spend 4% to 5% GDP and seek to argue for that
level of funding following his tenure as president. You maintain he
would have engineered a reduction to 1% by the end of his two terms
and then sit idle while subsequent presidents reduced it to 1/2%.

I believe he would have been a strong supporter of 4% GDP while
President, and after. You clearly do not. Your position is illogical
and rests strongly on misreading statements made during negotiations
over a supplemental NASA budget.

The point we are discussing is a strong commitment to 4% of GDP
rather than dropping down to 1/2% GDP. You have said or inferred
nothing that suggests JFK would reduce his commitment to space.

What Kennedy might or might not have done, if he had lived, and if
he had been reelected (which was by no means certain), is
speculation.

That's what we're doing here sir. Speculating on what might have
been. Some have said Kennedy would have sat idle while the space
program was gutted, or would have gutted it himself. I've come up
with clear statements of policy JFK made regarding nuclear space
propulsion, long term use of these systems to cross to the ends of the
solar system, and longer term vision of the great potential of spac
to the American people. You keep repeating unfortunate statements
made during a meeting whree JFK was trying to get a better price for
his moon program and would have us believe that tells the whole story.
Clearly you are trying to fool us by illogically ignoring all the
other statements Kennedy has made about space.

Nothing can be proven.

True. Only reasonable interpretations of things said within the
context they were made.

We can only look at who said
what to who,

Yep - and the context in which they're made.

and how history played itself out,

Johnson and McNamara sat down in December '63 and savagely cut the
budget for nuclear and other longer term stuff that Kennedy clearly
supported. Johnson changed Kennedy's space program to a Moon Program.
Changing the vision of our future in space to a place in space.
Nixon continued this cut by converting our space program to a Shuttle
Program. Changing our destination in space to a space vehicle. The
failure of that vehicle puts us in a position that allows the
anti-space crowd, people like you, to kill the space program
altogether as being impractical.

and try to construct
plausible alternative histories.

That's right. Clearly Kennedy was committed to a longer term vision
of space development while all subsequent Presidents did not share
that vision. Had Kennedy been around two terms and achieved a good
portion of that vision, and then survived after to be available to
enunciate that vision clearly, without the pressures of office - space
development would be far more advanced than it is today. We cannot
know for certain, but this seems very reasonable.


Whatever Kennedy's commitment, he would have been out of office in
January 1969 at the latest. Very possibly, he would have been out
of office by January 1965, depending on how voters weighed his
performance regarding the Bay of Pigs, the Missile Crisis, and his
spending 4% of GDP on NASA.

Well, I'm glad to see that you agree had Kennedy been in office over
two terms he would have continued spending on space at 4% GDP. That's
all I'm saying.

Now, had he been around as long as Nixon (Nixon was older, but Kennedy
had health difficulties) every major change proposed for space
development would have been an opportunity for Kennedy to speak more
clearly about his vision for space. This vision would grow in depth
and importance with time - and would have been a powerful incentive to
maintain spending levels at 4% levels.

Whatever Kennedy's commitment, it's Congress that ultimately passes
the budget.

That's true. And Congress is responsible to the American people. And
the American People are inspired by great visions of possibility.
Those visions, illuminated by powerful statements from great leaders,
inspire the people, who elect the congress, who carry out their will,
and pass the budgets.

Now, had Kennedy served two terms, and enlarged the budgets for
nuclear space propulsion, not reduce them as Johnson did, and carried
out a moon program and more over two terms - and had JFK survived
thsoe two terms and been around as long as Nixon - available to write,
speak, and think about space development over the closing decades of
the 20th century, and his role in history- it is very likely that our
NASA budget throughout the period, and today, would be 4% of GDP, that
space business would be substantially more than comsats, and that the
world would be very different than it is today - with democratically
elected governments throughout the Middle East, and a world economy
some 5x larger than it is today.


LBJ, JFK's successor, was also hawkish about space dominance:

Actually, he sat down the Robert McNamara following the Kennedy
assasination and submitted a budget that cut out or cut down a
lot of basic research supported by JFK.

And that was despite his (LBJ's) earlier statement that "first in
space means first, period; second in space is second in everything."
Plainly, politicians often make decisions that go contrary to their
public pronouncements. Talk is cheap.

LBJ supported NRO and NSA expansion in space, which pays dividends to
this day, supported Apollo until it was clear we would 'win', and cut
everything else. Nixon cut Apollo and supported the Shuttle, and
continued NRO and NSA expansion in space - while cutting everything
else. Carter was more concerned about energy than space - and cut
public funding of SST. Ford sustained a 1% NASA budget to live
within. Reagan proposed a Defense/Space connection with SDI. Bush 1
- proposed SEI and until NASA gave a budget busting number to do so,
wanted to return to the moon. Clinton saw NASA as a government works
project, but did support privatization of GPS and supported the
development of standoff weapons using space based assets = like JDAMs.
Bush 2, beset with a war on Terror, has little budget or reason to
support space. But the Chinese just orbited a man, and Bush 2 is
thinking about returning to the moon. Hopefully NASA won't screw up
again.

What would JFK have done when confronted with the "budget wrecking"
costs of that research? We can only guess.

Yep. I would guess he would limit them to 4% of GDP and let them work
within that, while supporting longer term projects like ROVER and
NERVA within that 4%. I would guess that because that's precisely
what he did when he was in office.

Why should I believe
that he would have acted any differently (contrary to his earlier
public statements)?

Differently than what? You have yet to show us any compelling
statements that indicate JFK would limit NASA's budget to anything
less than 4% of GDP.


I would say LBJ was fully committed to a moon program while JFK
was fully committed to US becoming a space faring society that
makes use of new resources and capacities in space to change its
very way of life.

You're free to say that.

Okay.

He [LBJ] sat down with McNamara in December of 1963 and slashed
big pieces of the space budget. His focus was to retain the
moon-program to honor the fallen President, while gutting
everything that would carry us into space in a meaningful way.

And there's simply no way of knowing whether or not Kennedy himself
would have done the same thing,

If you have any evidence -other than this tape made at a meeting
following NASA's supplemental budget submission- to support this
contention, I'd like to hear it.

when confronted with the political
and economic realities of taxes and expenditures.

He limited his expenditures to 4%, and continued to support ROVER and
NERVA well beyond the meeting you keep wanting to misquote out of
context. This is a pretty strong argument that JFK would have
continued at the 4% expenditure level over his tenure as president.

I see no reason to believe that JFK would have made much
difference.

You keep repeating this statement but so far have provided no
reason or rationale for it.

I don't need to "prove" anything, and don't claim to.

Okay, well, if you are willing to accept that your opinion that JFK's
survival wouldn't have made much difference to NASA has no basis in
reality, then we have no argument.

As a juror
in the court of public opinion,

???? Well, I don't want to deflate your ego, but I don't remember
asking you to serve on this jury.

I'm simply not convinced that JFK
was some extraordinary visionary or more politically committed to
a space faring society than other contemporary "pro-space"
politicians, such as his own Vice President. (If you don't believe
LBJ was pro-space, why not? After all, he said he was.) And, if
JFK was alone with his vision and commitment, what difference would
that have made?

JFK supported nuclear space propulsion and a larger vision of "great
peaceful development" of space. LBJ cut nuclear space propulsion and
supported a smaller vision of near Earth space development for
military and domestic gain.

If JFK had lived, would he have been reelected? Hard to say.

Separate issue. I'm merely saying that if JFK had served two terms
NASA would have achieved far more during those terms, and had JFK
lived as long as Nixon following his presidency, he would have had a
lasting impact through the balance of the 20th century resulting in
far more space capacity than we have at present.

Would
he have defended the NASA budget against critics, both in and out of
his own party, who saw the entire manned space enterprise as a
horrific waste of money?

Given that he would be defending his role as a visionary in history -
clearly he would.

Hard to say. Had he chosen to defend it,
would he have prevailed?

He would have had an impact. I believe that impact would have been
considerable. You clearly do not. You are shifting gears here. If
you agree that had JFK served 2 terms that NASA would have achieved
more, and if you agree that had JFK lived as long as Nixon, and would
have defended a larger space program all that while - then we have no
argumnent. As to his effectiveness in this role? Who knows? It
would have made it harder to kill NASA in those out years though, and
if something's tough, Congress tends to make deals. NASA would have
something between 2% and 4% of the budget throughout the balance of
the 20th century, not the paltry 1/2% it has today - and that would
spell huge differences.

Impossible to say.

Yep. We can't know for sure. But there's every reason to believe had
JFK served two terms and been around as long as Nixon following his
last term, NASA would be far larger and more capable than they are
today - and space business would be something more than just comsats.

The burden of proof is on those who claim to know how much better
it would be for our space faring society if Kennedy had lived.

Nonsense. The burden is on anyone who claims to know what might have
happened, no matter what they say. I've given you my reasons for
believing what I do. You have given me no reasons for your belief,
and have only parroted a lot of anti-space rot over and over.

I'm
not convinced that it would have made much difference in that
regard.

Yet, you have no basis at all for saying this. That's my point.
There's every reason to believe that JFK would have supported NASA at
4% GDP through 1968 (and 69 based on when fiscal years start and end)
- and vocally supported it against detractors throughout the balance
of his life. This would mean NASA would have a powerful supporter,
and likely would have attracted other supporters to Kennedy's cause.

I mean no disrespect to the man personally. I neither
demonize nor worship him.

I like JFK and what he did or tried to do for America. How old were
you when he was president?

I've said about all I have to say on this. I'm not much concerned
with changing anyone else's opinion. I'm simply stating my own.

Understand you have no real basis for the opinions you have.

Kennedy was a Cold War politician; the moon had propaganda value.

Certainly, the moon program has propaganda value - that's what LBJ
liked about it. But, the nuclear rocket program has not such value.
The nuclear rocket program is useful only if you have a larger vision
of "great peaceful development" of space. This Kennedy had - despite
his positioning himself during budget negotiations by appearing to
walk away from space altogether.

william mook wrote:

Clearly you are attempting to fool us into believing that Kennedy's
argument behind the scenes with NASA and others positining himself
to lower the high price of the supplemental budget should wrongly
tell us something about his lack of larger commitment to space.

Fool you how? I'm merely quoting the transcript. Believe what you
want.


You repeat the same things you've already repeated in the hopes
that by repeating misinformation people will buy it. Clearly
you're attempting to fool us into believing something that isn't
true.

I'm not selling anything. Nor am I buying the yarn you're trying
to sell.


Setting aside the recently released tape which I've explained was
from a meeting held following NASA's supplemental budget for the
moon program. What else have you got?

You choose to set it aside. I do not.


You are attempting to assasinate Kennedy again.

Oh, please. Because I don't put him on a pedestal, I assassinate
him? Is there no middle ground for you? Your position appears to
be driven more by emotion than reason.


JFK was assasinated before the Apollo 1 fire. Prior to that
fire NASA was to land on the moon sometime in 1967 or 68. The
Apollo 1 fire and the retrofits that followed it delayed the
program 18 months or so according to those who worked on the
project.

So? Do you mean to imply that the fire and subsequent delay
would not have occurred if JFK had remained president? Non
sequitur.

Why are you complaining? Obviously, you've created a non-sequitor
by taking a tangential view of an answer I made to another
tangential question. Plainly you seek to bury any real
conversation in a pile of minutiae that has no meaning.

You're the one who brought up the fire. I ask the relevance of that,
and you accuse me of taking off on a tangent.


So, lets get back to the point. I say that had Kennedy been
President two terms NASA's budget during that period would have
hovered around 4% GDP, and likely have remained there for a
number of years following his presidency.

That's your fantasy. In actual fact, it would have required the
consent of a lot of other people, even if Kennedy had remained
committed to 4% of GDP, which is not certain.


Look, I say had Kennedy benn president over two terms we would
have avoided the Vietnam war, spent far more on cooperative
ventures like the Peace Corps - reduced covert activities that
destabilized freely elected governments - and spent far more on
space travel development. NASA would have remained at 4% to 5%
of GDP and not dropped to 1/2% of GDP.

You're free to say that. I'm not convinced. Too bad if that
upsets you.


I maintain he would spend 4% to 5% GDP and seek to argue for that
level of funding following his tenure as president. You maintain
he would have engineered a reduction to 1% by the end of his two
terms and then sit idle while subsequent presidents reduced it to
1/2%.

Now you're fabricating. I have never made any specific statement
about what Kennedy would have done. In fact, that's what I object
to in your position: the certainty that he would have done thus and
so, and all the country would have rallied behind him.

It's unknowable. Kennedy was a politician, not an emperor. He
would have done what politicians do: prioritize, compromise, give
and take, possibly even reverse course if the situation demanded.
I'm not sold on the notion that he had a unique overarching
commitment to space.


Clearly you are trying to fool us ...

How so? By doubting your interpretation and extrapolation of
history? The transcripts are there for all to read. I encourage
anyone interested to read them and draw their own conclusions. How
is that fooling anyone?


Whatever Kennedy's commitment, he would have been out of office
in January 1969 at the latest. Very possibly, he would have
been out of office by January 1965, depending on how voters
weighed his performance regarding the Bay of Pigs, the Missile
Crisis, and his spending 4% of GDP on NASA.

Well, I'm glad to see that you agree had Kennedy been in office
over two terms he would have continued spending on space at 4% GDP.

I agree to nothing of the sort. On the contrary: I suspect that,
if Kennedy had thought his reelection depended on cutting the NASA
budget, he would have done so. I doubt that he would have sacrificed
his political career and everything else in his agenda for the sake
of NASA.


Why should I believe that he [JFK] would have acted any
differently (contrary to his earlier public statements)?

Differently than what?

Differently than LBJ, who also made bold statements about being
first in space, but cut the budget anyway.


As a juror in the court of public opinion,

???? Well, I don't want to deflate your ego, but I don't remember
asking you to serve on this jury.

Talk about ego! What makes you think I need an invitation from you?
Who appointed you judge?

I'm a member of the public. I have my opinions. You have different
opinions, to which you're entitled. Personally, I find your
supporting arguments unconvincing.


I'm not convinced that it would have made much difference in
that regard.

Yet, you have no basis at all for saying this.

It's the null hypothesis. What should I assume in the absence of
evidence? You would have me believe that JFK would put the NASA
budget above all other political and economic concerns, and that
the country would give him everything he asked. I'm not convinced.
He barely won '60. If winning '64 or passing other important
legislation meant cutting back the NASA budget, I suspect he would
have done so, because that's the sort of thing real-world
politicians do. Camelot is a fantasy.


Understand you have no real basis for the opinions you have.

Understand you venerate the fallen president and are distressed
that others do not.

This has become tiresome. You may have the last word. I doubt
many others are still following it.

--

Ted Hall

"Theodore W. Hall" wrote in message ...
william mook wrote:

Clearly you are attempting to fool us into believing that Kennedy's
argument behind the scenes with NASA and others positining himself
to lower the high price of the supplemental budget should wrongly
tell us something about his lack of larger commitment to space.

Fool you how?

By quoting statements out of context in an effort to have us believe
that statements made during a negotiation are to be read as JFKs
ultimate intent.

I'm merely quoting the transcript.

Yes, out of context. These statements were made at a meeting
following the receipt by the President of a supplemental budget to
achieve his goals in space. This budget was far more than he
expected, given his earlier briefings by vonBraun and others. This
meeting was to get a handle on prices - so he positioned himself in a
strong negotiating position. You are hoping folks will read these
statements out of context and believe something totally opposite of
what JFK actually felt.

[snip]

"william mook" wrote in message
om...
"Theodore W. Hall" wrote in message
...
william mook wrote:

Clearly you are attempting to fool us into believing that Kennedy's
argument behind the scenes with NASA and others positining himself
to lower the high price of the supplemental budget should wrongly
tell us something about his lack of larger commitment to space.

Fool you how?

By quoting statements out of context in an effort to have us believe
that statements made during a negotiation are to be read as JFKs
ultimate intent.

I'm merely quoting the transcript.

Yes, out of context. These statements were made at a meeting
following the receipt by the President of a supplemental budget to
achieve his goals in space. This budget was far more than he
expected, given his earlier briefings by vonBraun and others. This
meeting was to get a handle on prices - so he positioned himself in a
strong negotiating position. You are hoping folks will read these
statements out of context and believe something totally opposite of
what JFK actually felt.


Bill, you continually amaze me, y'know?

Terrell's annual PSA: don't give this schmuck any of your money, you'll
never see it again...

--
Terrell Miller


People do not over-react. They react, by definition, appropriately to the
meaning a situation has for them. People have "over-meanings," not
"over-reactions."
- Martin L. Kutscher

"Terrell Miller" wrote in message ...
"william mook" wrote in message
om...
"Theodore W. Hall" wrote in message
...
william mook wrote:

Clearly you are attempting to fool us into believing that Kennedy's
argument behind the scenes with NASA and others positining himself
to lower the high price of the supplemental budget should wrongly
tell us something about his lack of larger commitment to space.

Fool you how?

By quoting statements out of context in an effort to have us believe
that statements made during a negotiation are to be read as JFKs
ultimate intent.

I'm merely quoting the transcript.

Yes, out of context. These statements were made at a meeting
following the receipt by the President of a supplemental budget to
achieve his goals in space. This budget was far more than he
expected, given his earlier briefings by vonBraun and others. This
meeting was to get a handle on prices - so he positioned himself in a
strong negotiating position. You are hoping folks will read these
statements out of context and believe something totally opposite of
what JFK actually felt.


Bill, you continually amaze me, y'know?

This is non-responsive to the points made - which is really one point.
The tape from which you would have us draw erroneous conclusions
about JFKs larger vision was made during a meeting following receipt
of NASA's supplemental budget by the President. This was clearly
stated by the librarians who posted the tape and transcript. Plainly,
JFK was responding to that situation in a way that positioned him to
get the best deal possible. Anyone who has ever negotiated for better
price knows that you position yourself to walk away from the deal in
order to get a better price. This is precisely what JFK was doing
here.


Terrell's annual PSA: don't give this schmuck any of your money, you'll
never see it again...

This goes beyond non-responsiveness and borders on the delusional.
Who's asking for money where? There's nothing useful I could say
about this sort of statement. shrug