Category THE RACE

To develop background material on the various issues he would have to address during his presidential campaign, Senator Kennedy in December 1958 established a “brain trust” drawn primarily from the faculties of Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Even before the presidential campaign began, Harvard law professor Archibald Cox began collecting research memoranda and reports from experts at both universities and from across the country. According to the authoritative account of the Kennedy campaign, “The professors were to think, winnow, analyze and prepare data on the substance of national policy, to channel from university to speech writers to Cox to Sorensen—and thus to the candidate.” This process failed in its execution. While an impressive amount of material was generated, little of it was read by Kennedy or used during the campaign. Regarding the products of Cox’s efforts, Theodore Sorensen comments that “not all of their material was usable and even less was actually used. But it provided a fresh and reassuring reservoir of expert intellect.”10 The differ­ent perspectives of those caught up in the frenzy of Kennedy’s presidential campaign, such as Sorensen, and those with the time to reflect on issues that Kennedy would have to address if he was elected were a continuing source of campaign tensions.

Kennedy himself on September 2, 1960, asked Cox to contact Trevor Gardner, former assistant secretary of the U. S. Air Force for research and development, and a man to whom Kennedy looked for advice on space and missile issues. Kennedy wanted from Gardner “an account of the Administration’s failures in missiles, 1953 to today” and his “judgment on the significance of our being in a secondary position in space in the sixties.” Kennedy also asked, “Will the Soviet Union have a reconnaissance satellite before we do, and what will it mean?”11

Another source of largely unused but remarkably prescient input into Kennedy’s campaign was the Advisory Committee on Science and Technology of the Democratic Advisory Council, which in turn reported to the Democratic National Committee. Among its inputs was a September 7 “Position Paper on Space Research.” Leading the preparation of this paper was physicist Ralph Lapp, who, after working in the Manhattan Project to develop the atomic bomb, spent most of the rest of his career warning about the dangers of nuclear war. The position paper pointed out that “the United States has failed to define its real objective in space. If purely scientific, this should be so stated so that the American people and others understand our objective. If aimed at ‘winning the space race’ then this must also be stated and the U. S. program must be directed toward this goal.” The paper went on to discuss landing a man on the Moon as a possible objective of a compet­itive space effort, asking, “Can the United States afford to allow the Russians to land on the moon first?” and noting that the answer to this question was “more political” than technical, since “there is no great scientific urgency” in a manned lunar landing. It noted that “in the psycho-political space race the rewards for being first are exceedingly great; there is little pay-off for second place.”

The paper outlined two alternative space programs. One of the programs was “an imaginative and vigorous program of research in space science and technology and to exploit useful applications of this new technology. . . in collaboration with other nations.” The other suggested program aimed at “American supremacy in the exploration of space,” including “early attain­ment of a thrust capability consistent with manned flights to the Moon.” The paper noted that “Senator Kennedy must make the decision, essentially political in character,” between the two programs. The costs of the politi­cally driven second program were estimated to be $26 billion from 1960 to 1970, compared to the then planned expenditures during that period of $12 to 13 billion. The scientifically oriented but faster-paced program was estimated to cost $19 billion. While this paper was unlikely to have been read by Kennedy or his top advisers, it was a quite insightful statement of the central space issue that would occupy Kennedy once he entered the White House, and its cost estimates were surprisingly close to the actual costs of the program that President Kennedy in 1961 chose to pursue.12

Yet another input into Kennedy’s position on space during the campaign was a briefing paper prepared for the candidate’s “Position and Briefing Book”; this was a resource that traveled with the campaign team as a ready source of speech material and responses to media questions. The briefing paper suggested “eliminating the unrealistic distinctions between civilian and defense space projects” and said that there should be “one coordinated space program with joint civilian and military space uses.” The paper pro­posed that Kennedy should “place one man in charge of all space activities, reporting directly to the President.”13

In the wake of President Kennedy’s pressure, a new name was suggested, apparently to Lyndon Johnson by Senator Kerr and independently to President Kennedy by Wiesner. Wiesner later argued that his suggestion was the one that was decisive, although other accounts suggest that it was Lyndon Johnson who first brought Webb’s name to White House attention. The new candidate was James E. Webb, a businessman and lawyer with prior experience in high-level government posts. During the Truman administra­tion, Webb had been head of the Bureau of the Budget (BOB) and then the number two person under Dean Acheson at the Department of State. Webb also had experience in managing large organizations; he had worked in Oklahoma heading one of Robert Kerr’s companies from 1953 to 1958. After leaving Kerr’s employ, Webb had been active on issues of science and engineering education, in the process becoming well known to many of the leaders of the scientific community, including Wiesner.

According to Wiesner, Kennedy asked him to check whether Johnson agreed that Webb would be a good choice. Johnson did agree, and because he had had such little success with the people he had contacted, asked Wiesner to call Webb. On Friday, January 27, after clearing the contact with the presi­dent, Wiesner telephoned Webb, who was at a luncheon in Oklahoma City, and asked him to be in Washington the following Monday to meet with the vice president to discuss the NASA position.

Webb left Oklahoma City on Friday and spent the weekend in Washington discussing the prospects for space under Kennedy with several former associ­ates in the BOB and the Kennedy White House staff and with others whose views he valued. One of them was Webb’s longtime friend Lloyd Berkner, who was the current chair of the Space Science Board of the National Academy of Sciences, NASA’s primary source of scientific advice; Berkner had himself been approached for the NASA job and had said that he was not interested. By Monday morning, January 30, as he arrived at Johnson’s Capitol office, Webb felt that he had a fairly good idea of what was going on with respect to space and had concluded that “I would not take the job if I could honorably and properly not take it.”

Before meeting with Lyndon Johnson (whom he did not know well), Webb chatted with acting NASA administrator Hugh Dryden, who was there for the meeting, and Frank Pace, who had been Webb’s successor as director of the BOB in the Truman administration. Webb had also known Dryden since the late 1940s. Both Pace and Dryden agreed with Webb that he was not the right man for the job, and Webb asked Pace to convey that view to Johnson. Pace tried to do so, but Johnson was unwilling to listen and in essence threw Pace out of his office. Webb then met with Johnson, who, Webb says, was “very anxious” for Webb to accept the NASA job. Webb made it clear that he would only accept the position on the basis of a direct offer from the president. Arrangements were quickly made for Webb to meet with Kennedy, whom Webb previously had met only once or twice on social occasions.

After lunch with Dryden, Webb met with Kennedy one-on-one in the Oval Office. Kennedy told him that he did not want a technical person for the NASA job, saying that “there are great issues of national and interna­tional policy” related to NASA, and that Webb, with his previous govern­ment experience, was well qualified to address such issues. Webb felt he could not refuse the president’s direct invitation, and so accepted the nomination.

He asked Kennedy to keep Hugh Dryden as deputy administrator, and he also asked the president whether he was being hired to implement a prede­termined policy. Kennedy assured him that this was not the case and that he was looking to Webb to propose the best direction for NASA. Kennedy then escorted Webb from the Oval Office to the office of press secretary Pierre Salinger, who took Webb to the press room to announce his nomination. Only then could Webb call his wife to tell her what had happened; she had already heard the news on the radio.16

Webb’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, with Robert Kerr in the chair, was held three days later, even before Webb’s formal nomination papers reached Capitol Hill; there were no questions after Webb’s opening statement. The committee voted unanimously to support the nomination; the Senate followed suit on February 9. Lyndon Johnson swore in Webb as NASA’s second administrator on February 14, and Webb set to work with the goal “to end uncertainty, to make unmistakably clear . . . support for manned space flight, to define necessary additions to the budget for Fiscal Year 1962 . . . and to establish personal and official relationships conducive to effective leadership.”17 It was thus clear from the start of his tenure that James Webb had a different, more ambitious, vision for the future of NASA than his predecessor. Getting this vision accepted would not be an easy task. In preparation for Webb’s first meeting with the new director of the BOB, David Bell, on February 16, the BOB staff suggested that “we are pretty much still in the dark as to what position the [Kennedy] administration desires to take in the space field, or whether any general direction has been decided upon.”18

In addition to getting President Kennedy’s agreement to continue Hugh Dryden as deputy administrator, Webb also asked Robert Seamans to stay on as associate administrator. He was happy to learn that Seamans was a Republican, since that would give a bipartisan appearance to the top NASA management team. Webb told Dryden and Seamans that he wanted NASA to be managed jointly by the three of them as a “triad,” hammering out the major decisions together. Webb would handle NASA’s external political and public relations, Dryden would be the primary link to the U. S. and interna­tional science communities, and Seamans would act as NASA’s general man­ager. Seamans describes the arrangement: “Jim was the charismatic leader with long-range vision and a great knack for understanding how policy and politics interacted in Washington. Hugh. . . possessed a quiet, invaluable sense of practicality. . . I managed NASA’s programs while Jim lined up out­side support and Hugh provided sound guidance on our goals.”19

As he took on the NASA job, Webb was fifty-four years old. He was “stocky and voluble, vigorous, noisily garrulous, and with a broad North Carolina accent.” He had a strong physical presence; “though not a tall man, his strong, square head and bullish neck, his sturdy chest, an obsti­nate jaw and narrowed grey-blue eyes lent him a dominant demeanor.” Sorensen notes that “Webb was not. . . a Kennedy type individual. He was inclined to talk at great length, and the President preferred those who were

more precise.” He adds, however, that “I don’t know that the President ever regretted his appointment of Webb.” Wiesner remembers that Kennedy “understood that he had somebody with real ability in Webb” and adds that he never heard Kennedy say anything “snide or negative” about him. One account of Project Apollo, however, comments that “only because Kennedy was indifferent to space did Jim Webb end up in the administrator’s position.” While a number of other men had turned down the job because of NASA’s uncertain future, if they had “known that four months later NASA would become a custodian of the nation’s honor, most of them would have snapped up the job. If the men in the White House had known, they would not have chosen anyone like Jim Webb.” The president’s brother Robert Kennedy agreed with this view. He commented in 1964 that if his brother “had realized how much money would be involved and how impor­tant it [the space program] was going to be, he never would have made Jim Webb the head of it.” Robert Kennedy added that Webb “talked all the time and was rather a blabbermouth. . . The President was very dissatisfied with him.”20

On Monday April 10, 1961, John F. Kennedy threw out the opening day baseball pitch as the Washington Senators played (and lost to) the Chicago White Sox on a chilly and damp afternoon. Baseball was not the only thing on the president’s mind that day. Sometime early in the game, Kennedy’s deputy press secretary Andrew Hatcher told him that the United Press International news service was about to report that the Soviet Union had successfully recovered the first human to orbit the Earth. Kennedy asked Hatcher to check on the report; he had known for several weeks from intel­ligence briefings that such a launch was imminent. The Soviet Union had successfully completed one-orbit missions of a spacecraft carrying a dog as a passenger on March 9 and March 25. It was almost certain that the next step would be a mission with a human on board. Hatcher reported back a few innings later that the news reports “have not materialized” and that “elaborate Russian plans to make this anticipated announcement have been abandoned for today.” Also, said Hatcher, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) “could not confirm or deny the report” of the Soviet launch.1

By the end of the next day, April 11, the CIA did report that the Soviet launch was likely within the next few hours. Press Secretary Pierre Salinger prepared and Kennedy approved a statement for the president to issue once the Soviets had announced a successful mission. The president also had an approach ready to take if the launch were unsuccessful and the cosmonaut died. Famed journalist Edward R. Murrow, whom Kennedy had chosen to head the U. S. Information Agency, in an April 3, 1961, memorandum for McGeorge Bundy had suggested that “in the event of a Soviet manned shot failure we should express, with all the sincerity we can muster, the deep regret and distress of the President and the people of the United States.” Simultaneously, suggested Murrow, one of the Mercury astronauts might “publicly express the regret of his group” and his confidence that “the Soviet astronaut was prepared,” as were the Mercury astronauts, “to give up his life for the advancement of human knowledge.” However, “covertly, the

U. S. might encourage commentators in other countries to deplore the low regard for human life which prompted the Soviets to attempt a manned shot ‘prematurely.’ ”2 As he retired for the evening on April 11, Kennedy told his aides that he did not want to be woken if the Soviet announcement came while he was sleeping.

The expression of regret was not needed. Within a few seconds of the launch of the first human in space at 1:07 a. m. on April 12, Washington time (11:07 a. m. at the launch site in Soviet Central Asia), U. S. intelligence systems knew that it had taken place. They monitored the in-orbit communications during the single-orbit flight and decoded the television transmissions from the spacecraft that showed the cosmonaut moving about.3 It took several hours for Moscow to announce the successful mission; the Soviet dispatch said that “the world’s first space ship Vostok with a man on board has been launched on April 12 in the Soviet Union on a round-the-earth orbit. The first space navigator is Soviet citizen pilot Maj. Yuri Alekseyevich Gagarin.” Science adviser Wiesner called Salinger at 5:30 a. m. with this news. The pres­ident was informed of the Soviet achievement when he woke up around 8:00 a. m.; he authorized Salinger to release the prepared statement, which said: “The achievement by the USSR of orbiting a man and returning him safely to ground is an outstanding technical accomplishment. We congratulate the Soviet scientists and engineers who made this feat possible. The exploration of the solar system is an ambition that we and all mankind share.”4

Later that morning, NASA administrator James Webb and Senator Robert Kerr came to the Oval Office for a previously scheduled meeting with the president to discuss a planned national conference on space to be held in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Webb brought with him a model of a Mercury space­craft. Theodore Sorensen recalls that Kennedy, “who had no real grasp of the enormous technology involved, and remained skeptical about the cost and importance of space missions,” quipped about the “Rube Goldberg – like contraption” that “Webb might have bought it in a toy store. . . that morning.”5

President Kennedy had a previously scheduled news conference on the late afternoon of April 12. Inevitably, the questioning turned to the Soviet space achievement. The first question was relatively friendly, and Kennedy’s response predictable:

Q: Could you give us your views, sir, about the Soviet achievement of putting a man in orbit and what it would mean to our space program, as such?

Kennedy: Well, it is a most impressive scientific accomplishment, and also I think that we, all of us as members of the [human] race, have the greatest admiration for the Russian who participated in this extraordinary feat. I have already sent congratulations to Mr. Khrushchev, and I send congratu­lations to the man who was involved.

I indicated that the task force which we set up on space way back last January, January 12th, indicated that because of the Soviet progress in the field of boosters, where they have been ahead of us, that we expected that they would be first in space, in orbiting a man in space. And, of course, that

has taken place. We are carrying out our program and we expect to-hope to make progress in this area this year ourselves.

Then the questioning became a bit more pointed:

Q: Mr. President, a Member of Congress said today that he was tired of seeing the United States second to Russia in the space field. I suppose he speaks for a lot of others. Now, you have asked Congress for more money to speed up our space program. What is the prospect that we will catch up with Russia and perhaps surpass Russia in this field?

Kennedy: Well, the Soviet Union gained an important advantage by securing these large boosters which were able to put up greater weights, and that advantage is going to be with them for some time. However tired anybody may be, and no one is more tired than I am, it is a fact that it is going to take some time and I think we have to recognize it.

They secured large boosters which have led to their being first in sputnik and led to their first putting their man in space. We are, I hope, going to be able to carry out our efforts with due regard to the problem of the life of the man involved this year. But we are behind and I am sure that they are making a concentrated effort to stay ahead.

We have provided additional emphasis on Saturn; we have provided addi­tional emphasis on Rover; we are attempting to improve other systems which will give us a stronger position—all of which are very expensive, and all of which involve billions of dollars.

So that in answer to your question, as I said in my State of the Union Message, the news will be worse before it is better, and it will be some time before we catch up. We are, I hope, going to go in other areas where we can be first and which will bring perhaps more long-range benefits to mankind. But here we are behind.

Earlier in the press conference, Kennedy had mentioned one of the areas “where we can be first” and which might bring “more long-range benefits to mankind”—desalinization of sea water. He told the press conference, “we have made some exceptional scientific advances in the last decade, and some of them—they are not as spectacular as the man-in-space, or as the first sputnik, but they are important.” For example, added Kennedy, “I have said that I thought that if we could ever competitively, at a cheap rate, get fresh water from salt water, that it would be in the long-range interests of human­ity which would really dwarf any other scientific accomplishments.”6 Over the next few days, as he absorbed the political reaction in the United States and around the world to the Soviet achievement, Kennedy would change his mind; by the evening of April 14, he would say “there’s nothing more important” than finding a way to overcome the Soviet lead in space.

The thirty-page report, classified “Secret,” was titled “Recommendations for Our National Space Program: Changes, Policies, Goals.”10 It called for an additional $686 million for the space program above the increases that President Kennedy had already approved in March; all but $137 million of that amount was for NASA. In particular, “to achieve the goal of landing a man on the moon and returning him to earth in the latter part of the cur­rent decade requires immediate initiation of an accelerated program of space­craft development”; the report called for adding $210.5 million dollars for developing the Apollo spacecraft. At the time in mid-1960 when it was first identified publicly as the project to follow Project Mercury, the objective of

Project Apollo had been to support a three-person crew either in Earth orbit or on a circumlunar flight; now the Project Apollo was to carry Americans to a lunar landing. An additional $112.5 million was requested to allow NASA to accelerate development of the large F-1 liquid-fueled rocket engine and related facilities; $62 million was requested for DOD to develop a large solid propellant rocket motor in parallel to F-1 development. Another $15 million was allocated to DOD for a back up to the Centaur upper rocket stage that NASA was developing. Other increases included an additional $50 million to NASA for communication satellites; $75 million for meteorological satel­lites, $22 million of that amount for NASA and $53 million for the Weather Bureau; and $30 million for nuclear rocket development, $23 million for NASA and $7 million for the Atomic Energy Commission.

The specifics of what programs would receive additional funding was NASA’s primary input into the report; the second section was based on John Rubel’s draft material. That section argued that “projects in space may be undertaken for any one of four principal reasons.” These included “gain­ing scientific knowledge,” “commercial or chiefly civilian value,” “potential military value,” and “national prestige.” The report noted that the United States was not trailing the Soviet Union in the first three categories, but that “the Soviets lead in space spectaculars which bestow great prestige.” The central argument of the report was:

All large scale space projects require the mobilization of resources on a national scale. They require the development and successful application of the most advanced technologies. They call for skillful management, centralized control and unflagging pursuit of long-range goals. Dramatic achievements in space, therefore, symbolize the technological power and organizing capacity of a nation.

It is for reasons such as these that major achievements in space contribute to national prestige. Major successes, such as orbiting a man as the Soviets have just done, lend national prestige even though the scientific, commercial or military value of the undertaking may by ordinary standards be marginal or economically unjustified.

The nation needs to make a positive decision to pursue space projects aimed at enhancing national prestige. Our attainments are a major element in the international competition between the Soviet system and our own. The non­military, non-commercial, non-scientific but “civilian” projects such as lunar and planetary exploration are, in this sense, part of the battle along the fluid front of the Cold War.

In order to undertake such projects, suggested the report, “what was needed were management mechanisms capable of centralized direction and control.” It was “particularly vital” that the United States avoid the “error of spreading ourselves too thin.” The report analyzed the results of the rapid build-up of defense capabilities in the 1950s, suggesting that “we have over­encouraged the development of entrepreneurs and the proliferation of new enterprises.” While the report did not suggest that the United States should “apply Soviet type restrictions and controls,” it said that “our American system can be and must be better utilized in the future.” It added that “we must stress performance, not embellishment. We must insist from the top down, that, as the Russians say, ‘the better is the enemy of the good.’ ”

The final section of the report spelled out the specific new space goals that were being recommended. They included the following:

• “Manned Lunar Exploration”: Webb and McNamara recommended “that our National Space Plan include the objective of manned lunar exploration before the end of this decade. . . The orbiting of machines is not the same as the orbiting or landing of a man. It is man, not merely machines, that captures the imagination of the world.” The report noted that there was no information about Soviet plans for a similar program, but suggested “even if the Soviets get there first, as they may, and as some think they will, it is better for us to get there second than not at all.”

• “Worldwide Operational Satellite Communication Capability”: Webb and McNamara noted that while “advances in technology will make it pos­sible to set up an operational satellite-based telecommunications capability within a few years,” it was “too early to be sure what kind of capability we should create.” Even so, they were “confident that an operational satel­lite capability can have far reaching applications and implications for the U. S.”

• “Worldwide Operational Satellite Weather Prediction System”: Such a sys­tem, Webb and McNamara suggested, “would be of great value to people in every country, to public and private interests in the U. S., and to our military forces.”

• “Scientific Investigation”: Webb and McNamara suggested that it was “essential that the national space sciences program be broad and compre­hensive both in content and in participation by the scientific community of the world.”

• “Large Scale Boosters for Potential Military Use”: Webb and McNamara noted that while “the military potential and implications” of space tech­nology were “largely unknown. . . without the capacity to place large pay­loads reliably into orbit, our nation will not be able to exploit whatever military potential unfolds in space.”

The Webb-McNamara report was necessarily vague with respect to whether the Soviet Union was already embarked on a lunar landing program. It noted that while the United States was “uncertain of Soviet intentions, plans, or status,” the Soviet Union had announced a lunar landing as a “major objec­tive of their program” and that the Soviet Union “may have begun to plan for such an effort years ago” and “may have undertaken important first steps which we have not begun.” The memorandum suggested that Soviet suc­cesses in space were the result of “long-range planning” and that the slow pace and disappointments in the U. S. space effort “are symptoms of the lack of adequate national planning and guidance for the long pull.” It concluded that “even if the Soviets get there [to the Moon] first. . . it is better for us to get there second than not at all. . . If we fail to accept this challenge it may be interpreted as a lack of national vigor and capacity to respond.” These words were certain to resonate with President Kennedy.

Beginning in late June 1962, the BOB began a review that was intended to lay out in a consistent format the five-year space programs of the Department of Defense, NASA, the Atomic Energy Commission, and, although it could not be acknowledged at the time, the National Reconnaissance Office, the organization developing and operating U. S. reconnaissance satellites, the very existence of which was highly classified. This review was in response to President Kennedy’s specific request “for a consolidated presentation of the space programs and estimates of all agencies” and “that 1964 estimates for space programs be given an especially critical review.”

According to Willis Shapley of the BOB, who was in charge of the review, one question that prompted the review was a White House “reeval­uation of whether the Apollo program should really proceed.” It is not clear whether it was the president himself who was raising this question; given his interest just a few months later to push for an earlier date for the first lunar landing attempt, this seems unlikely. More probable was that his budget, technology, and policy advisers, who were in general more skeptical of the value of Apollo than was the president, were making sure that Kennedy recognized the full implications of his space commitment. In addition, there were short-term concerns in mid-1962 about a possible recession, talk of a temporary tax cut, and a desire to avoid an unbalanced federal budget; this meant that Kennedy was paying particular attention to controlling rapid increases in spending in discretionary areas such as space and defense.32

By August 15, the BOB had compiled some 250 “data sheets,” one for each of the principal space projects of the government. These were put into two loose-leaf binders and, because intelligence satellite programs were included, classified at such a high level that only relatively few people inside the gov­ernment were cleared to possess the binders. Shapley recalls that he was “not too proud” of the review, “because it was really pretty bureaucratic.”

The BOB did prepare a late August “draft staff report” based on the review. The report noted that “the central decision to be confirmed or modified is whether the manned lunar landing program should proceed at an optimum pace as contemplated in present NASA plans, or whether a deci­sion should be made to stretch out the program to avoid as great an increase in expenditures in 1964 and 1965.” The report examined the short-term budget impacts of slipping the target date for the first landing attempt until late 1968. It concluded that “under all feasible alternatives, barring a com­plete reversal of the MLL [manned lunar landing] and other augmented space program decisions of May 1961 . . . substantial increases in expendi­tures appear unavoidable in 1964 and 1965.” The staff report mentioned that this situation had been pointed out as the decision to accelerate the space program was being made a year earlier; the BOB had noted that the decision “was a long term commitment involving increasing expenditures for a period of several years.” At the end of the section of its report dealing with NASA, the BOB recommended a course of action that recognized “that nei­ther the total fiscal situation nor the space program alternatives and implica­tions are clear enough now to permit a definite decision on the program and budgetary guidance to be given to NASA.” The BOB recommended that “the issue should remain open until the final 1964 budget decision period in November or early December.”33

As the BOB was finishing its review, James Webb was once again reminded of President Kennedy’s concern about the rising costs of the NASA program. On August 15 Kennedy sent a brief memorandum to Webb, asking him about press reports that the cost of the new Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston had increased from $60 million to $123 million. Kennedy asked: “Is this correct? Who are the architects and the builders and under whose control is the Space Center building to be put up?” Webb replied on August 18, saying that the costs Kennedy was quot­ing were those in a statement by Senator William Proxmire (D-WI), who was questioning “the prudence with which the space program is being administered” and implying that “the increase in cost. . . resulted from a lack of budget discipline.” Webb said that “the figures quoted are substan­tially correct; the implications are not,” and provided a lengthy explanation of the reason for the higher cost figure. This explanation did not satisfy President Kennedy. In a note to budget director Bell, the president said that it seemed to him that the cost of the new center was “excessive,” and the cost increase “does raise the question of funding of the entire program. This needs the most careful continuing scrutiny.” Kennedy asked Bell for his “suggestions on the recent appropriations for this space program— what programs are essential and desirable and how we can make them meet the cost estimates more precisely.” He added: “This program has so much public support that unless there is some restraint there is a possibility of wasting some money.”34 This tension between Kennedy’s desire to be first in space and his concern over the very high costs of Apollo was to run throughout 1962 and 1963.

One issue as Kennedy considered resurrecting a cooperative proposal was whether the U. S.-USSR race to the Moon was real. The White House in 1963 in fact did not know whether there was an ongoing Soviet effort to send people to the Moon. A December 1962 National Intelligence Estimate regarding the Soviet space program had observed: “Our evidence as to the future course of the Soviet space program is very limited. Our estimates are therefore based largely on extrapolation from past Soviet space activi­ties and on judgments as to likely advances in Soviet technology.” The estimate went on to say that “the top Soviet leaders have not committed themselves publicly to competition with the US in achieving a manned lunar landing, and it is highly unlikely that they will do so. . . On the basis of present evidence, we cannot say definitely at this time that the Soviets aim to achieve a manned lunar landing ahead of or in close competition with the US, but we believe that the chances are better than even that this is a Soviet objective.”13

It seems as if the president was not aware of this intelligence estimate. He asked CIA director John McCone on April 29, 1963, “Do we have very much information, and if so, what does it indicate, on the Soviet effort in space?” Kennedy that day had read an article in The Christian Science Monitor sug­gesting that there was an increased Soviet effort in space and asked McCone “What is our view on it?”14

A formal response to Kennedy’s question did not come for several months. In a CIA analysis dated October 1, 1963, and titled “A Brief Look at the Soviet Space Program,” the agency gave an even less precise estimate of Soviet capabilities and intentions than it had the prior December, saying that the Soviet space plans

unquestionably include manned lunar landings. . . but there is no evidence that the program is proceeding on a crash basis. . . It is believed that the Soviets intend to compete vigorously in the early exploration of the moon and that this effort will include manned flights, although probably not early manned landings.

It is not yet possible to settle with assurance whether the Soviets are engaged in a manned lunar landing program competitive with the United States. Definitive indications of the Soviets being in such a race have not been found, but could be submerged to such an extent that they might exist with­out being so identified. In December 1962, it was estimated that there was a better than even chance that the Soviets had a competitive manned lunar landing program though no firm conclusion could be reached. A later review of pertinent material produced essentially the same judgment. At present there is still no firm evidence of the existence of such a program, but because of the passage of time, it is estimated that a competitive program aimed at the 1968-1970 time period is somewhat less likely than before. Though the flight testing of a new larger booster and a new manned capsule have been predicted, no firm evidence of their early introduction has as yet been noted.15

The uncertainty in the United States at this time about the exact character of a Soviet program to send men to the moon is in retrospect understand­able, since the situation in the Soviet Union was both complex and confus­ing. While design work on a large booster able to carry out a manned lunar mission was already underway, those developments were not yet known to U. S. intelligence services. There was a debate within the Soviet space system over both the wisdom of a lunar mission and the assignment of responsibil­ity for such a mission, should it be initiated. Final Soviet approval of a lunar landing mission did not come until 1964.16

The $5.712 billion Fiscal Year 1964 budget request for NASA sent to the Congress in January 1963 was almost $500 million less than what NASA had requested from the White House the previous September, but still repre­sented a 55 percent increase over NASA’s appropriation for Fiscal Year 1963. As the Congressional examination of the NASA budget request began in February and March 1963, Aviation Week and Space Technology speculated that NASA would be faced with “a sizeable budget cut—up to a half billion dollars—unless a new Soviet space spectacular changes the attitude of an economy-minded Congress.”26 This forecast proved prophetic; by the time that the Congress completed work on the NASA appropriation on December 10, the agency’s approved budget was $5.1 billion, a reduction of $612 mil­lion, almost 11 percent less than what had been requested.

While the president’s September 20, 1963, United Nations proposal to turn lunar exploration into a cooperative undertaking was viewed with dismay by NASA and its congressional advocates, the reality was that most of the reductions in the NASA budget, particularly by the House of Representatives, predated the cooperative proposal. In June and July, the House Committee on Science and Astronautics cut a total of $475 mil­lion from the NASA budget, and during floor debate an additional $34 million was taken out; the House on August 1 approved a NASA FY1964 authorization of $5.203 billion. NASA fared somewhat better in the Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, but still took a $201 mil­lion reduction; the full Senate on August 8 authorized a $5.511 NASA bud­get. On August 28, after a conference committee had compromised on the differences between the two bills, the Congress approved a $5.351 billion NASA authorization; this amount was almost $400 million less than the president had requested and $850 million less than what NASA the previous fall had thought needed to keep Apollo on schedule. The White House made no public statements in support of reversing the cuts in the NASA budget, although science adviser Wiesner in an August 2 memorandum to President Kennedy did note that the House cuts in robotic missions intended as pre­cursors to human missions to the Moon would make it difficult to ascertain lunar surface characteristics, an understanding critical to a successful lunar landing. Wiesner recommended to the president that the White House inform the chairman of the Senate Space Committee, Clinton Anderson (D-NM) (Robert Kerr had died on January 1, 1963 and was replaced as committee chair by Anderson) about the importance of the robotic mis­sions “with the request that funds deleted by the House Committee be reinstated.” This message apparently reached Senator Anderson, and funds for the robotic Lunar Orbiter and Surveyor missions were included in the Senate version of the authorization bill.27

NASA’s hope that there would be no further cuts in its budget proved illusory. Authorization bills set the upper limit on the funding for a par­ticular federal agency; the actual funds available are contained in the con­gressional appropriation for the agency. Hearings on the NASA FY1964 appropriation began in the House of Representatives on August 19. Webb in his testimony urged the Appropriation Subcommittee on Independent Agencies, which had jurisdiction over NASA and which was chaired by space program supporter Albert Thomas, to approve the full amount that Congress would soon authorize. The members of the subcommittee were not swayed by Webb’s plea; The New York Times on September 19 (the day before President Kennedy’s address to the United Nations) reported that the subcommittee members were “contemplating a cut in the space budget of

more than $700 million, which would make it virtually impossible to fulfill the Presidential objective of achieving a manned lunar landing by the end of the decade.” The Times also reported that “administration officials are working frantically behind the scenes to ward off such an unexpectedly large cut.” On September 24, in the aftermath of President Kennedy’s United Nations speech, the House Subcommittee approved a $5.1 billion NASA appropriation. The full Appropriations Committee confirmed the $5.1 bil­lion budget on October 7, leading James Webb to say that NASA could not achieve a lunar landing before 1970 at that budget level. Even so, the House of Representatives approved the $5.1 billion NASA appropriation on October 10.

NASA’s expectation at this point was that the Senate Appropriations Committee, which in the past had been a strong NASA supporter, would restore the $250 million that the House appropriation had cut from the NASA authorization level. However, taking the White House and NASA “somewhat by surprise,” the Senate committee on November 13 approved a NASA FY1964 budget of $5.19 billion, only $90 million above the House level. As the appropriations bill was being debated on the Senate floor, Senator J. William Fulbright (D-AK) proposed an additional 10 percent cut in the NASA budget. The Senate rejected this proposal, but did accept an amendment from Senator William Proxmire (D-WI) to reduce the budget to the House level of $5.1 billion. With no difference in the budget level approved by the House and the Senate, there was a real prospect of missing the “end of the decade” target date for the first lunar landing.28 Only a bit more than two years after Apollo was begun, the Congress was beginning to sour on providing the resources needed to meet the program’s end-of-the – decade goal.

By 1960, it had become customary for specialized publications to ask presi­dential candidates to state their positions on issues of interest to their readers. Thus the trade magazine Missiles and Rockets on October 3, 1960, published an “open letter to Richard Nixon and John Kennedy,” proposing a nine – point “defense and space platform” and asking the candidates to reply, “stat­ing your views and making your stand quite clear on these two closely related problems.” Kennedy’s response, which appeared in the October 10 issue of the magazine, was drafted by Dr. Edward C. Welsh, at that time working for Senator Stuart Symington; Symington had competed with Kennedy for the Democratic presidential nomination and reflected the views of the more military-oriented elements of the Democratic Party. Both Symington and Welsh were vigorous champions of a strong U. S. space effort; the statement was “full of the clash and clamor of the space race.”14 The Kennedy state­ment said:

We are in a strategic space race with the Russians, and we are losing. . . . Control of space will be decided in the next decade. If the Soviets control space they can control earth, as in past centuries the nation that controlled the seas has dominated the continents. . . We cannot run second in this vital race. To insure peace and freedom, we must be first.

The target dates for a manned space platform, U. S. citizen on the moon, nuclear power for space exploration, and a true manned spaceship should be elastic. All these things and more we should accomplish as swiftly as possible. This is the new age of exploration; space is our great New Frontier.15

How accurately this statement reflected John Kennedy’s actual thinking as of October 1960 with regard to the strategic and military importance of space is questionable; the fact that it was prepared by someone with­out a central role in Kennedy’s campaign suggests that neither Kennedy nor his close policy advisers had much involvement in its content. Many in the space community, however, took the statement at face value and anticipated that if elected Kennedy would favor an accelerated space effort and would put additional emphasis on the military dimensions of the U. S. space program.

James Webb faced an almost immediate challenge to his freedom to man­age NASA as he saw appropriate, especially in the context of the preva­lent NASA-Air Force tensions. The first attempt in July 1960 to launch a Mercury capsule atop an Atlas booster had ended in an explosion. The cause of this failure had been localized to the area where the spacecraft and the capsule were joined. Since the Air Force retained responsibility for booster performance and launching while NASA was responsible for the spacecraft and the overall mission, this meant that both organizations were intimately involved in attempting to correct whatever had caused the failure. A “quick fix” using an improvised steel band was adopted. The NASA top management had agreed to this approach before Webb took office, but the Air Force remained extremely concerned about the possibil­ity of another major accident. There had been a highly visible Atlas failure on December 15, 1960 as NASA attempted to send a robotic spacecraft to the Moon, increasing the level of concern on the part of the Air Force. That worry was linked to the important question of what another failure would communicate about the reliability of the Atlas ICBM, a key element of the U. S. nuclear deterrent force, and thus to the credibility of the U. S. deterrent threat.21

Webb was briefed on the situation on February 18 by NASA’s Project Mercury managers, who wanted his approval for a launch of the improved Mercury-Atlas combination on February 21. Webb approved the launch, but soon after got a call from the Air Force asking him to reverse that decision. From the White House, Wiesner also expressed his opposition to going ahead. After Webb checked again with knowledgeable people both within and outside NASA, he refused to reverse his decision, although the Air Force “protested vehemently” and made its concerns known to the White House, most likely through one of Kennedy’s military aides, Air Force General Godfrey McHugh. The White House decided not to intervene in the dispute, “making the issue a major test for Webb and NASA and their credibility with the president.” The February 21 flight was a total success; Webb had passed his first challenge with flying colors.22

Congressional and media reaction to the Soviet achievement on April 12 and the next several days resembled—indeed, in some ways exceeded—the rather hysterical reactions after the launch of Sputnik 1 in October 1957. Clearly, this second Soviet space achievement was a major political setback for the new administration.

The Soviet Union was quick to capitalize on the propaganda significance of the successful flight. In his first telephone conversation with Gagarin after his return to Earth, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev boasted: “Let the capi­talist countries catch up with our country!” The Central Committee of the Communist Party claimed that the flight “embodied the genius of the Soviet people and the powerful force of socialism.” East German Communist leader Walter Ulbricht said that the flight “demonstrates to the whole world that socialism must triumph over the decaying system of yesterday.” Reacting to claims such as these, a New York Times correspondent suggested that it appeared likely that “the Soviet leaders can further alter the atmosphere of international relations so as to create more pressure on Western governments to make concessions on the great world issues of the present day.”7

The rest of the world was almost unanimous in its admiration of the Soviet achievement. In Great Britain, “universal praise for the Soviet achievement from Cabinet ministers, diplomats, scientists, and the general public was accompanied by some anti-American barbs from men in the street.” The French press “relegated all other news to a secondary position. . . Even com­ments and reactions to President De Gaulle’s news conference were put into relative obscurity.” In Italy, “news of the successful Russian space flight was heralded . . . in banner headlines.” Romans snapped up the papers, emptying kiosks in a matter of minutes, then stood around discussing the event. The Vatican newspaper called the flight “a universal good” and a Geneva paper termed the voyage “the number one event of the twentieth century.”8

The U. S. Information Agency summarized world reaction to the Gagarin flight in an April 21 report, which noted that “media coverage of the Soviet man-in-space has been extraordinarily heavy,” with its initial volume “com­parable to that received by Sputnik 1, if not greater.” The “general tenor” of the press reports was “to acclaim the first manned space flight as (1) a great event in human history, ( 2) a tremendous scientific and technical achieve­ment, and ( 3) a triumph for the USSR that would have many repercussions in the Cold War,” since it would “increase Soviet military, political, and propaganda leverage.”9

American reaction to the Gagarin flight was characterized by disappoint­ment and chagrin. No high official had prepared the general public to expect the Soviet flight, and thus for many it came almost as much of a shock as the 1957 Sputnik 1 launch. The Washington Post commented editorially: “The fact of the Soviet space feat must be faced for what it is, and it is a psychologi­cal victory of the first magnitude for the Soviet Union. . . The general excite­ment from Europe to Asia, Africa and the Americas will not be diminished by the recognition that no immediate military, commercial or other actual advantage accrues to the Soviet Union. In these matters, what people believe is as important as the actual facts, and many persons will of course take this event as new evidence of Soviet superiority.”10

The New York Times correspondent Harry Schwartz commented that “the President, of course, had attempted to present himself as an image of a young, active, and vigorous leader of a strong and advancing nation. . . But none of these and other measures have had the effectiveness or the spectacu­lar quality of Soviet efforts. Moreover, since he took office the President’s image has been beset by the difficulties he has had with Congress, by his failure to spell out the promised ‘sacrifices’ to be required of the American people and by the continued recession.”11

The hawkish New York Times military correspondent Hanson Baldwin was even sharper in his criticism.

This same philosophy, which cost the nation heavily in prestige and marred the political and psychological image of our country abroad, hobbled our

space program even before the Russians put the first sputnik in orbit_____ It is

high time to discard this policy. In fact, if the United States is to compete in space, we must decide to do so on a top-priority basis immediately, or we face a bleak future of more Soviet triumphs.

Even though the United States is still the strongest military power and leads in many aspects of the space race, the world—impressed by the spectacu­lar Soviet firsts—believes that we lag militarily and technologically.

The dangers of such false images to our military power and diplomacy are obvious. The neutral nations may come to believe the wave of the future is Russian; even our friends and allies could slough away. The deterrent, which after all is only as strong as Premier Khrushchev thinks it is, could be weak­ened.

Baldwin concluded by pointing out that “only Presidential emphasis and direction will chart an American pathway to the stars.”12

John F. Kennedy was an avid newspaper reader. He very likely had criti­cisms such as these in mind as he considered how best to respond to this new Soviet challenge.