Space Race Driven By The Nuclear Threat - Now A Mainstream Understanding

It is refreshing to know that an accurate understanding of Space
History has now hit the mainstream. Neil DeGrasse Tyson last night on
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart encapsulated how the Space Race was
driven by the nuclear threat:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-epi...degrasse-tyson

Here are excerpts of what was said:
=====
....

NDT: OK, here's what happened: In the 1960s, we were at war with the
Soviet Union - Cold War - and a little bit of hot war in Viet/
Southeast Asia, ok. So, we fear them because they put up Sputnik,
which by the way, people forget, was an emptied-out casing of an Inter-
Continental Ballistic Missile, alright. So this was not...

JS: I don't think people forgot that. I don't think anybody knew
that.

NDT: Ok. So they put a little device that goes 'beep beep'. And
"Sputnik" itself means 'fellow traveler', so it's all peaceful - but
it was a ballistic missile head, without explosives, so that was a
signal. And we freaked in America. So NASA got founded on the Fear
Factor of Sputnik. Alright. So we then go to the Moon on the Fear
Factor that Russia will control high ground. Then we go to the Moon -
Space enthusiasts say, "Oh, we're on the Moon by/in '69. We'll be on
Mars in another 10 years." They *completely* did not understand why
we got to the Moon in the first place. We were at war. Once we saw
that Russia was not ready to land on the Moon (*clap*) we stopped
going to the Moon. That should not surprise anybody looking back on
it.

Meanwhile, however, that entire era galvanized the nat[ion] - forget
the war, driver - it galvanized us all to dream about tomorrow.

....

NDT: So today, ok, I'd rather war not be the driver.

JS: No! Let it be the driver! Who cares?!

NDT: It could happen. If China wants to put a military base on the
Moon, we're there in two years.

JS: I heard Al Qaeda is goin' to Mars. That's what I heard.

NDT: No, you see, with China and Mar[s] - Mars is already red.

....

=====

I don't imagine that NDT is planning to give a portion of the proceeds
of his book sales to those he learned that info from.

The important part is that accurate space history is now entering the
mainstream.

....and with that, I feel a satisfying sense of closure with the
persistent effort put forth here over the past dozen years.

~ CT

I forgot to mention that he was on the Daily Show to promote his new
book, Space Chronicles: Facing the Ultimate Frontier.

(http://www.amazon.com/Space-Chronicl...e-Frontier/dp/
0393082105)

I expect that the book delves into the short summary he presented to
Jon Stewart. I'll be interested to find a copy and poke around in
it. It's kind of weird to have space history getting set straight by
an astronomer/astrophysicist, not a space historian specialist. Maybe
after banishing Pluto, he decided that the next frontier he would
tackle would be outside his area of expertise?! Or he felt compelled
because he was born within a week of NASA perhaps.

~ CT


On Feb 28, 3:25*pm, Stuf4 wrote:
It is refreshing to know that an accurate understanding of Space
History has now hit the mainstream. *Neil DeGrasse Tyson last night on
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart encapsulated how the Space Race was
driven by the nuclear threat:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-epi...27-2012-neil-d...

Here are excerpts of what was said:
=====
...

NDT: *OK, here's what happened: *In the 1960s, we were at war with the
Soviet Union - Cold War - and a little bit of hot war in Viet/
Southeast Asia, ok. *So, we fear them because they put up Sputnik,
which by the way, people forget, was an emptied-out casing of an Inter-
Continental Ballistic Missile, alright. *So this was not...

JS: *I don't think people forgot that. *I don't think anybody knew
that.

NDT: *Ok. *So they put a little device that goes 'beep beep'. *And
"Sputnik" itself means 'fellow traveler', so it's all peaceful - but
it was a ballistic missile head, without explosives, so that was a
signal. *And we freaked in America. *So NASA got founded on the Fear
Factor of Sputnik. *Alright. *So we then go to the Moon on the Fear
Factor that Russia will control high ground. *Then we go to the Moon -
Space enthusiasts say, "Oh, we're on the Moon by/in '69. *We'll be on
Mars in another 10 years." *They *completely* did not understand why
we got to the Moon in the first place. *We were at war. *Once we saw
that Russia was not ready to land on the Moon (*clap*) we stopped
going to the Moon. *That should not surprise anybody looking back on
it.

Meanwhile, however, that entire era galvanized the nat[ion] - forget
the war, driver - it galvanized us all to dream about tomorrow.

...

NDT: *So today, ok, I'd rather war not be the driver.

JS: *No! *Let it be the driver! *Who cares?!

NDT: *It could happen. *If China wants to put a military base on the
Moon, we're there in two years.

JS: *I heard Al Qaeda is goin' to Mars. *That's what I heard.

NDT: *No, you see, with China and Mar[s] - Mars is already red.

...

=====

I don't imagine that NDT is planning to give a portion of the proceeds
of his book sales to those he learned that info from.

The important part is that accurate space history is now entering the
mainstream.

...and with that, I feel a satisfying sense of closure with the
persistent effort put forth here over the past dozen years.

~ CT

Sputnik was a hollowed-out nuclear weapon???

rick jones
--
firebug n, the idiot who tosses a lit cigarette out his car window
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

From Rick Jones :
Sputnik was a hollowed-out nuclear weapon???

Maybe his book argues that the proper translation of 'Sputnik' is
Plutonium Placebo. Ha!

~ CT

Rick Jones wrote:
Sputnik was a hollowed-out nuclear weapon???

rick jones

Well it had the proper geometry...

Dave

Should have been the understanding back then too.

Seems like as a kid I kept finding articles about our space program tucked
away in books or magazines with titles like 'Missiles and Space', etc.

Doesn't get clearer than that does it?

Dave

In David Spain writes:

Should have been the understanding back then too.

Seems like as a kid I kept finding articles about our space program tucked
away in books or magazines with titles like 'Missiles and Space', etc.

Doesn't get clearer than that does it?

You're missing the original poster's thesis, which isn't too
big a surprise since he's been flogging it so long that only some
Google-like service applied to Usenet could recover or even clearly
remember it. No sane person questions that the Space Race was, in
part, a matter of showcasing technological and economic might, and
by implication military and political might.

Sane people, however, do dispute the idea that the Saturn V
was built to significantly advance intercontinental ballistic missiles,
since the Saturn V would be a spectacularly dumb choice for ICBM, and
work to advance the state of the art in nuclear-bomb-carrying-rockets
would be sensibly done in nuclear-bomb-carrying-rocket programs, rather
than on Apollo/Saturn.

--
http://nebusresearch.wordpress.com/ Joseph Nebus
Current Entry: An Overused Intermediacy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Joseph Nebus ):
In David Spain writes:

Should have been the understanding back then too.
Seems like as a kid I kept finding articles about our space program tucked
away in books or magazines with titles like 'Missiles and Space', etc.
Doesn't get clearer than that does it?

* * * * You're missing the original poster's thesis, which isn't too
big a surprise since he's been flogging it so long that only some
Google-like service applied to Usenet could recover or even clearly
remember it. *No sane person questions that the Space Race was, in
part, a matter of showcasing technological and economic might, and
by implication military and political might.

What NDT was saying is that the military aspect was the *primary*
driver. Not some secondary or tertiary implication.

* * * * Sane people, however, do dispute the idea that the Saturn V
was built to significantly advance intercontinental ballistic missiles,
since the Saturn V would be a spectacularly dumb choice for ICBM, and
work to advance the state of the art in nuclear-bomb-carrying-rockets
would be sensibly done in nuclear-bomb-carrying-rocket programs, rather
than on Apollo/Saturn.

I have never presented that position.

I will defer here to the wisdom of Arthur Schopenhauer...

-----
All truth passes through three stages:
- First, it is ridiculed.
- Second, it is violently opposed.
- Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
-----

I will take your reply as a positive sign that the transition from the
1st&2nd stages into the 3rd stage has now begun.

Of course it comes after this forum has died off - in the literal*,
I'm sad to know, as well as figurative sense. And of course I did
consider not posting this thread at all, knowing what the standard
response of this forum is. But I went ahead and did it with the
understanding that the silent majority who gain info lurking through
these kind of threads will benefit. And also again with the closure
aspect.

* - Back in October I was reading about Pat Flannery's death. As much
as I wanted to make my own positive contribution to his memory, I
chose to remain silent - knowing this forum for what it is.

This Google(-like) service has an excellent memory. It can clearly
show that I never presented the justification for funding any Saturn
(Saturn V among that) to be as an ICBM. I never so much as stated
that the purpose of Saturn was to advance ICBM technology. There
would have been many much smarter, more economical ways to do that.

A key point made early on is how Eisenhower does not get the credit he
is due for his administration funding Saturn. As well as funding the
Air Force F-1 engine project long before Saturn. Both programs had
vision well beyond the needs of any ICBM. Ike funded that vision.
JFK just reaped the benefits and glory of Commander-In-Chief Ike's
foresight.

Last night I read through NDT's Space Chronicles book. It was a huge
disappointment, in that he completely skipped this Ike part of the
story as well as many other major aspects. He devotes a whopping 7
pages to his chapter on the space race.

Oh well. At least it is a major step in the positive direction.
Kudos to NDT for this effort!

~ CT

From David Spain:
Rick Jones wrote:
Sputnik was a hollowed-out nuclear weapon???

Well it had the proper geometry...

It is ironic how Sputnik looks like an orbiting nuclear bomb pit.

~ CT

From David Spain:
Should have been the understanding back then too.

Seems like as a kid I kept finding articles about our space program tucked
away in books or magazines with titles like 'Missiles and Space', etc.

Doesn't get clearer than that does it?

The history I remember is that Americans in Oct '57 attempted to
console themselves by saying that Sputnik did not have enough mass to
enable the delivery of a nuclear warhead.

This is why one month later Sputnik 2 was such a critical mission.
Laika put a harsh end to any such hollow attempts at Americans
rationalizing their domestic security.

A term you don't hear historians of the Space Race use very often, if
ever, is "Throw Weight".

....and I was disappointed that NDT didn't cover this in his book. At
least, not that I saw. Just one of the many key aspects he skipped
(or missed).

~ CT