Kennedy's "end of this decade" time limit

It's been slow here lately, so i'm posing a question that i've
wondered about for some time. when president kennedy set the time
limit for landing a man on the moon at 'the end of this decade', was
there ever any discussion as to whether that meant the end of 1969 or
1970? When and at what level was it firmly decided that the end of
1969 was to be the target date?

[sorry, my laptop's having problem with caps.]

wrote:
It's been slow here lately, so i'm posing a question that i've
wondered about for some time. when president kennedy set the time
limit for landing a man on the moon at 'the end of this decade', was
there ever any discussion as to whether that meant the end of 1969 or
1970? When and at what level was it firmly decided that the end of
1969 was to be the target date?

[sorry, my laptop's having problem with caps.]


End of 1970...that's the technical end of the 1960's decade.
They thought they could get it landed before the end of 1969, but
figured that 1970 gave them some wiggle room in case of unexpected
delays (like the Apollo 1 fire).

Pat

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:07:13 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

It's been slow here lately, so i'm posing a question that i've
wondered about for some time. when president kennedy set the time
limit for landing a man on the moon at 'the end of this decade', was
there ever any discussion as to whether that meant the end of 1969 or
1970? When and at what level was it firmly decided that the end of
1969 was to be the target date?

....There was quite a bit of talk about it, in fact. However, while
internally the concensus was that while according to the way calendars
worked. The thing that throws the decades off is the fact that there
is no "Year Zero", and the first decade went from 1 ad to 10, the
second went from 11 to 20, and so on. Quite a few people understand
this, but to Joe Punchclock, Ethyl Soapsjunkie, and even
supposedly-enlightened Hipster Treehugger, the concept that the decade
ends on New Year's Day of the year ending in 1 and not 0 is almost
anethema to grasp.

....The news services are probably the most guilty of this. While they
ran short news features trying to explain this, when the year 2000
showed up, they *all* hailed it as the start of a New Century, instead
of Jan 1st, 2001 as it should be. Even Harry Harrisson was guilty of
this at the end of "Make Room! Make Room", where the book ended on NYE
2000, starting a "Happy New Century". In fact, IIRC the late Sir Art
Clarke may have been guilty of this in one of the early drafts for
"2001".

....Not that knowledge of which was going to help put a proper PR spin
on the matter. As noted in the film version of "The Right Stuff", the
public likes even numbers. Had the LM suffered a major slip preventing
a landing in 1969, although technically within JFK's mandate, slipping
the landing to 1970 would have still be perceived by the average
American - and probably the Ruskies as well - as having missed the
deadline.

....On a side note, arguments of a similar nature have occurred of late
between sportscasters over how many chanpionship seasons the Spurs
have under their belt. The problem there is that the season starts in
one year and ends in the next, which throws both actual and finger
counts out the window. I remember one heated post-game show after the
Spurts took their last one, where four sportscasters on WOAI almost
went to blows over whether it was six or seven championships. The
matter was finally settled when someone called in and told them to
quit bitching and just go count the trophies!

[sorry, my laptop's having problem with caps.]

....Oh hell. "scott grissom" syndrome *is* contagious!

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

On Mar 31, 6:24 pm, OM wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:07:13 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
It's been slow here lately, so i'm posing a question that i've
wondered about for some time. when president kennedy set the time
limit for landing a man on the moon at 'the end of this decade', was
there ever any discussion as to whether that meant the end of 1969 or
1970? When and at what level was it firmly decided that the end of
1969 was to be the target date?

...There was quite a bit of talk about it, in fact. However, while
internally the concensus was that while according to the way calendars
worked. The thing that throws the decades off is the fact that there
is no "Year Zero", and the first decade went from 1 ad to 10, the
second went from 11 to 20, and so on. Quite a few people understand
this, but to Joe Punchclock, Ethyl Soapsjunkie, and even
supposedly-enlightened Hipster Treehugger, the concept that the decade
ends on New Year's Day of the year ending in 1 and not 0 is almost
anethema to grasp.

...The news services are probably the most guilty of this. While they
ran short news features trying to explain this, when the year 2000
showed up, they *all* hailed it as the start of a New Century, instead
of Jan 1st, 2001 as it should be. Even Harry Harrisson was guilty of
this at the end of "Make Room! Make Room", where the book ended on NYE
2000, starting a "Happy New Century". In fact, IIRC the late Sir Art
Clarke may have been guilty of this in one of the early drafts for
"2001".

...Not that knowledge of which was going to help put a proper PR spin
on the matter. As noted in the film version of "The Right Stuff", the
public likes even numbers. Had the LM suffered a major slip preventing
a landing in 1969, although technically within JFK's mandate, slipping
the landing to 1970 would have still be perceived by the average
American - and probably the Ruskies as well - as having missed the
deadline.

...On a side note, arguments of a similar nature have occurred of late
between sportscasters over how many chanpionship seasons the Spurs
have under their belt. The problem there is that the season starts in
one year and ends in the next, which throws both actual and finger
counts out the window. I remember one heated post-game show after the
Spurts took their last one, where four sportscasters on WOAI almost
went to blows over whether it was six or seven championships. The
matter was finally settled when someone called in and told them to
quit bitching and just go count the trophies!

[sorry, my laptop's having problem with caps.]

...Oh hell. "scott grissom" syndrome *is* contagious!

OM

Such complex words about hardly anything. Is that what the best of
Usenet has to offer, is complex gibberish to fill the Usenet index
with such trivia?

What about the past several months worth of JAXA/Selene data
blackout?
.. - Brad Guth

" writes:

It's been slow here lately, so i'm posing a question that i've
wondered about for some time. when president kennedy set the time
limit for landing a man on the moon at 'the end of this decade', was
there ever any discussion as to whether that meant the end of 1969 or
1970? When and at what level was it firmly decided that the end of
1969 was to be the target date?

[sorry, my laptop's having problem with caps.]

I don't know a good way to find what was planned as the way to
interptet the deadline date, although a quick search of The New York
Times archive for 'Kennedy Deadline Apollo' between 1961 and 1970
turns up a lot of links I can't read in full because I don't have a
subscription. However, suggestive leads to me look like these:

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...ne+apollo&st=p

Apollo Aides Optimistic on Moon Shot by 1970

By JOHN W. FINNEY
Special to The New York Times
May 10, 1964, Sunday
Page 49, 727 words

HOUSTON, Tex., May 9 -- After three years of planning,
designing and fabricating, the thousands of parts that will make
up the Apollo lunar spacecraft are beginning to match up.

--------

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...ne+apollo&st=p


G.O.P. GROUP ASKS MOON-GOAL DELAY;
Fears a Premature Attempt if '70 Deadline Is Kept

By JACK RAYMOND
Special to The New York Times
May 28, 1964, Thursday
Page 24, 424 words

WASHINGTON, May 27 -- The Republican Critical Issues
Council called upon the Administration today to drop the 1970
deadline for putting a man on the moon.


--------

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...ne+apollo&st=p

Space; Goal Is Still 1970

May 14, 1967, Sunday
Section: The Week In Review, Page E1, 695 words

Out of the catharsis of doubts and recriminations that
followed the Apollo 1 spacecraft fire last January, there finally
emerged last week a new plan for resuming the nation's drive to
land men on the moon by 1970.

--------

Unfortunately, all of these teaser paragraphs are ambiguous
about whether they take the deadline to be 31 December 1969 or whether
anything by 31 December 1970 would be taken as success. Possibly full
articles would make things clearer, although I wouldn't be surprised
if everyone involved knew that an extra year at the end might be quite
necessary.

--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Mar 31, 10:24*pm, OM wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:07:13 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
It's been slow here lately, so i'm posing a question that i've
wondered about for some time. when president kennedy set the time
limit for landing a man on the moon at 'the end of this decade', was
there ever any discussion as to whether that meant the end of 1969 or
1970? When and at what level was it firmly decided that the end of
1969 was to be the target date?

...There was quite a bit of talk about it, in fact. However, while
internally the concensus was that while according to the way calendars
worked. The thing that throws the decades off is the fact that there
is no "Year Zero", and the first decade went from 1 ad to 10, the
second went from 11 to 20, and so on. Quite a few people understand
this, but to Joe Punchclock, Ethyl Soapsjunkie, and even
supposedly-enlightened Hipster Treehugger, the concept that the decade
ends on New Year's Day of the year ending in 1 and not 0 is almost
anethema to grasp.

...The news services are probably the most guilty of this. While they
ran short news features trying to explain this, when the year 2000
showed up, they *all* hailed it as the start of a New Century, instead
of Jan 1st, 2001 as it should be. Even Harry Harrisson was guilty of
this at the end of "Make Room! Make Room", where the book ended on NYE
2000, starting a "Happy New Century". In fact, IIRC the late Sir Art
Clarke may have been guilty of this in one of the early drafts for
"2001".

...Not that knowledge of which was going to help put a proper PR spin
on the matter. As noted in the film version of "The Right Stuff", the
public likes even numbers. Had the LM suffered a major slip preventing
a landing in 1969, although technically within JFK's mandate, slipping
the landing to 1970 would have still be perceived by the average
American - and probably the Ruskies as well - as having missed the
deadline.

...On a side note, arguments of a similar nature have occurred of late
between sportscasters over how many chanpionship seasons the Spurs
have under their belt. The problem there is that the season starts in
one year and ends in the next, which throws both actual and finger
counts out the window. I remember one heated post-game show after the
Spurts took their last one, where four sportscasters on WOAI almost
went to blows over whether it was six or seven championships. The
matter was finally settled when someone called in and told them to
quit bitching and just go count the trophies!

Just like the Yankees curse. They have gone to the playoffs every
single year in the 21st century but have never won a world series. The
last time they did was in 2000, but that was in the last century.

I had a real long debate with a Yankees fan about this as the prick
swore that 2000 was the 21 st century only to be told by virtually
everyone one in the bar including the bartender that the year 2000 was
the last year od the 20th century and that the 21st century started on
Jan. 1, 2001 (JDN: 2451910.5).

As far as San Antonio goes it is like this:

You can have every city in Texas; Dallas, Houston, El Paso, Waco, and
even Austin. However, you must share San Antonio with us Yankees (and
I ain't talking about any damn NY basaball team here!).

Eric