|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
OT Moon key to space future?
"Dick Morris" wrote ...
Paul Blay wrote: *follow-ups trimmed* "Dick Morris" wrote ... How exactly do the spammers expect to make money if there is no way to reply to them directly? Most have html links included, those that have _no_ other point of contact than the from address are a probable exception to the faked headers problem. Going to a web site simply adds an extra step. A step that renders it possible to extract money from you without having provided an accurate return address. Thus answering your earlier question, and also providing indirect evidence towards the implied question "Is it a stupid idea to send spam back to those spamming you?" And faked headers are illegal under our state law - most spammers appear to be aware of that. Given that most spam I get comes from South Korea is that really such an important point? Even 'legitimate' appearing spam is often faked or via 3rd parties so that spamming them won't affect the people responsible for the decision to spam you in the first place. (e.g. The 'BT Offers' spam that arrived a few seconds ago is actually via the 'clic2mail service' no email addresses or http links actually got to BT. Maybe it's legit, maybe it's not, but I don't feel like clicking to find out either way.) |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Moon key to space future?
Dick Morris
Ad hominem attacks appear to be your substitute for logic. No, I find that suggesting some highly probable characterization for someone who IGNORES facts and logic usually has the desired effect after their "fight" response wears down. They start thinking smarter before they just post any old nonsense. You should thank me for helping you improve yourself! or a Multinational Conglomerate, to be a market. My point was that we have to have a marketable vehicle before we can develop the markets - an extraordinary vehicle if we want to develop extraordinary markets. I This was your original point Extraordinary markets require extraordinary launch vehicles. You're putting the cart before the horse. and it's still just flat WRONG. Building a fantastic travel to the Moon or Mars or the planets of a nearby star vehicle WILL NOT ALLOW ONE TO "DEVELOP" MARKETS THERE!!!!!!!!!!! Study history, ships were developed FOR TRADE, not the other way around. -- James E. White Inventor, Marketer, and Author of "Will It Sell? How to Determine If Your Invention Is Profitably Marketable (Before Wasting Money on a Patent)" www.willitsell.com Also: www.booksforinventors.com and www.idearights.com [Follow sig link for email addr.Replies go to spam bit-bucket] |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
OT Moon key to space future?
Paul Blay wrote: "Dick Morris" wrote ... Paul Blay wrote: *follow-ups trimmed* "Dick Morris" wrote ... How exactly do the spammers expect to make money if there is no way to reply to them directly? Most have html links included, those that have _no_ other point of contact than the from address are a probable exception to the faked headers problem. Going to a web site simply adds an extra step. A step that renders it possible to extract money from you without having provided an accurate return address. Thus answering your earlier question, and also providing indirect evidence towards the implied question "Is it a stupid idea to send spam back to those spamming you?" In order to get money from anyone, they have to have a valid credit card number. If they have an automated means of validating credit information with their credit card company then that would take the burden off of them and change the picture considerably. On the other hand, if they get in the habit of submitting thousands of bogus credit verification requests per day, then the credit card company might get the idea that THEY are being spammed and boot the offender off of their system. I sure as h*ll would. The [stuff] hits the fan somewhere. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
OT Moon key to space future?
"Dick Morris" wrote in message ... Paul Blay wrote: *follow-ups trimmed* "Dick Morris" wrote ... "Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote: No, they should not, since almost all spam has faked headers. So you'll be hurting everyone else in the chain EXCEPT the spammers. How exactly do the spammers expect to make money if there is no way to reply to them directly? Most have html links included, those that have _no_ other point of contact than the from address are a probable exception to the faked headers problem. Going to a web site simply adds an extra step. Right, making it harder for you to do what you want to do. And faked headers are illegal under our state law - most spammers appear to be aware of that. Oh really? How do you know? As others have said, much of the spam is coming from overseas. And as it's virtually impossible to determine what state an email address owner resides in, I can pretty much guarantee a lot of the spammers are ignoring that law. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Moon key to space future?
Helium-3, also known as
astrofuel, is found in abundance in the Moon's soil. It is the most efficient known source of power -- 99 percent of its energy can be converted into electricity. ...using processes which we have not yet managed to develop. There is a present use for it. Helium-3 would make for a cleaner thermonuclear bomb. Perhaps if the Defense Department were to insist on using Helium-3/Deuterium fusion bombs instead of Deuterium/Trintium fusion bombs, this would create a powerful incentive to exploit the lunar resources. The Helium-3/Deuterium reaction releases less free neutrons and leave less radioactive residue in the process, environmentalist groups should be pleased. Tom |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Moon key to space future?
"Theodore W. Hall" wrote in message ...
h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message . .. Listen to what he said about it in private, not in public. william mook wrote: Pointers? Source material? I'm willing to listen to facts and understand the context of those facts. Google for the quoted phrase "not that interested in space" Thank you Theodore, I'll look into this... JFK's disinterest has been widely reported in the mainstream press, following the release of one of his Whitehouse audio tapes. Here's a link to an article in the JFK library: http://www.jfklibrary.org/newsletter...002_14-15.html Excellent! "Everything that we do should be tied into getting on to the moon ahead of the Russians. We ought to get it really clear that the policy ought to be that this is the top priority program of the agency and one... of the top priorities of the United States government," he said. "Otherwise we shouldn't be spending this kind of money, because I am not that interested in space," Kennedy said. "I think it's good. I think we ought to know about it. "But 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." It seems fairly clear that he had little interest in supporting NASA beyond the first successful moon landing. Winning the race was everything. I understand these comments were reported in the press in the way you say. And I admit, parsed the way you have them above, it certainly looks like JFK had a public and private view of things that were diametrically opposed. Very dramatic. But, clearly those reports are slanted for sensationalism - not accuracy. It makes a big splash to say that private and public statements made by Kennedy were 180 degrees apart. Things weren't that way at all. In fact, the very source your cite gives a little more context than you did above. Which gives us a clue as to what is really going on AT THAT MEETING: The JFK Library, Librarian says,"At the November 21, 1962 meeting, President Kennedy and his staff were discussing a supplemental budget for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the effect the increased money would have on expediting the scheduled orbital flights and the Apollo Space Program" Plainly this was a meeting to discuss the supplemental budget requested by NASA following the President's speech. His response, sticker shock. VonBraun in an earlier meeting before his address to Congress privately indicated a far smaller amount would be needed than NASA requested in their supplemental budget JFK was discussing here. Look, suppose you talked to a sales person about buying a new car and he said on the telephone that it cost $350 per month. Lets say this sounded good to you and you said, I'll be down to sign the papers! Then, when you get down to the dealership you get the papers and the monthly payment is $650 per month. What would you say? It depends on how much you want the car doesn't it? If you didn't want the car, you'd walk out of the dealership altogether right? If you *did* want the car, you'd negoatiate. Of course you would. If you really wanted the car you'd say things like, well, lets focus on getting the car as close to $350 per month as we can. Do we need in seat heaters? No. How about metallized paint job? No. How about the 10 disc CD/DVD player with back of the seat color LCD screens? Nope. In the end you buy the car for $450 per month - if you really wanted it, despite its high cost. Of course someone could tape you negoatiating with the dealer and play it out of context years later when your grandkids told stories about how much you loved your car. Right? Someone could respond and say, hey, he never even wanted that car! Listen! Then they'd here you say, "No! NO WAY! I can't pay that much!" and all sorts of interesting sound bites. This is what's happening here. President Kennedy is being assasinated again - this time by the press. Check it out, here's a statement made at Press Conference #58 on July 17, 1963 (6 years before the moon landing); 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. The point of the matter always has been not only of our excitement or interest in being on the moon; 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. QUESTION: What about the second part of my question? THE PRESIDENT: The second question is what cooperation we would be willing to carry on with the Soviet Union. We have said before to the Soviet Union that we would be very interested in cooperation. As a matter of fact, finally, after a good many weeks of discussion, an agreement was worked out on an exchange of information with regard to weather, but we have never been able to go into more detail. The kind of cooperative effort which would be required for the Soviet Union and the United States together to go to the moon would require a breaking down of a good many barriers of suspicion and distrust and hostility which exist between the Communist world and ourselves. There is no evidence as yet that those barriers will come down, although quite obviously we would like to see them come down. Obviously, if the Soviet Union were an open society, as we are, that kind of cooperation could exist, and I would welcome it. I would welcome it. I don't see it as yet, unfortunately. **** Clearly JFK is fully committed to a space program that has larger import than merely landing on the moon. Plainly JFK has a vision of a space faring humanity coming together in the nuclear age and moving into a far larger world than any leader today has capacity to see. Of course, GW Bush has announced today that he wants America to return to the moon. So, perhaps I am being overly pessimistic about that. I hope GW doesn't feel like he has to trash Kennedy's vision to make his worthwhile though. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Moon key to space future?
"James White" wrote in message news:tInzb.289552$9E1.1488378@attbi_s52...
Dick Morris Ad hominem attacks appear to be your substitute for logic. No, I find that suggesting some highly probable characterization for someone who IGNORES facts and logic usually has the desired effect after their "fight" response wears down. They start thinking smarter before they just post any old nonsense. You should thank me for helping you improve yourself! or a Multinational Conglomerate, to be a market. My point was that we have to have a marketable vehicle before we can develop the markets - an extraordinary vehicle if we want to develop extraordinary markets. I This was your original point Extraordinary markets require extraordinary launch vehicles. You're putting the cart before the horse. and it's still just flat WRONG. Building a fantastic travel to the Moon or Mars or the planets of a nearby star vehicle WILL NOT ALLOW ONE TO "DEVELOP" MARKETS THERE!!!!!!!!!!! Study history, ships were developed FOR TRADE, not the other way around. I actually couldn't agree more about using spaceships as trade enterprise tools, especially for using robotics, at not 1% the cost of accomplishing anything manned and not 0% the chance of any carnage, though I don't consider the ESE fiasco as a worthy topic of such robotics, at least not for a few decades worth and then only if someone other is paying for it. Why even bother going to a most likely inhabited planet like Venus if we can otherwise establish a TRACE-II class instrument at VL2, then using quantum laser packets in order to obtain/exchange all the information necessary and then some. Only if need be send off a trading ship that'll do as little environmental damage on both ends, as well as for eliminating the age old problem of letting the other guy get a good look at what you've honestly got to actually work with. Here's another topic or two pertaining to what our frozen and irradiated to death Mars has to offer: I've looked again at some of the most interesting of Mars images; of those frozen trees or bushes or whatever looks like trees and/or bushes. I tend to agree that the Mars-tree image is simply too *plan view* and not of sufficient perspective to fully appreciate the vertical attributes, though I do believe there is a sufficient amount of vertical structure that's placing such patterns above the surface, of which is still not excluding some hybrid crystal growth rather than of frozen and irradiated to death trees or perhaps bushes. The notion of there being "star dunes" was offered by Tom Newcomb, is certainly just as worth another look-see as if those were once organic. Though for some unexplained reason there's been insufficient efforts at navigating the imaging probe into a better position for a perspective view. If we had applied the sort of SAR imaging technology as the Magellan did of Venus, at the rather terrific perspective view of 43°, then lo and behold we'd have far more usable as well as believable pixels to boot. From my observation of those same "Mars trees" images (http://www.geocities.com/bradguth/mars-01.htm), I tend to feel the shadows projected are more likely suggesting such are of sufficient conical structure, though that doesn't rule out the notions of "star dunes" nor of "mineral structures". As frozen trees or bushes tend to go, they're obviously not representing sufficient solids as to create a crisp shadow. There may likely be a good deal of crystal growth on top of whatever died, creating even further opacity and/or diffusion of light. The pathetically thin (7 to 8 mb) and damn cold (except for a few tropical zone hours above freezing), as well as for being situated within a horrifically irradiated to death environment (being further away from the sun may reduce the solar flak but it's certainly not helping with fending off the cosmic flak), would have needed a transition of perhaps at least thousands of years for DNA/RNA to have adapted. So far, I don't believe the surface impacts as indicated on half of Mars is offering much hope, but for a few years at best, since all environmental hell must have broken lose once Mars was impacted to such an extent. BTW; I've updated one of my pages pertaining to obtaining and/or extracting energy on location, of where others have been making a tough go of it on Venus: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/fire-on-venus.htm Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Moon key to space future?
h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..
On 2 Dec 2003 22:05:49 -0800, in a place far, far away, (william mook) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: (Rand Simberg) wrote in message . .. On 1 Dec 2003 19:10:24 -0800, in a place far, far away, (william mook) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Now, now - that statement comes directly out of your gut with no analysis whatever. There is a reasonable probability that a second Kennedy term expands the space program while adopting more direct international controls to limit and reduce the spread of nuclear and missile weapons systems. There is almost zero probability of that, Of what exactly? That the US adopts a more direct means of control of WMDs than keeping them secret? No, that a second Kennedy term expands the space program. Oh, I see. Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by 'expand' - During Kennedy's tenure as President the space program enjoyed something like 4% of GDP. Today it obtains less than 1/2% of GDP. That was a tenure of a little over two years. A little over two years - that would be from January 1960 to November 1963 right? The term of the Kennedy presidency. There's little reason to think that its ultimate course would have been any different had he lived. There's every reason to believe that he was targeting something in the 4% of GDP range, because that's where the line was drawn. There is really no reason to believe that JFK would have spent more than that. There is absolutely no reaason whatever to believe he would have spent less. In fact, it's likely that its final demise was delayed by the fact that it was the artifact of a martyr,and wouldn't have survived as long as it did had he lived, References? Pointers? given his personal indifference to it. Please, we've already treated this canard in the last post. What's up with you anti-space guys? Don't facts count for anything? You think repeating a lie enough times makes it true? Sheez. I'm not arguing that it would grow to more than 4% of GDP under a Kennedy second term. I am arguing that it would have remained at 4% GDP to the end of the 1960s An argument with absolutely no historical basis. Rot. http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4102/ch7.htm Listen to what he said about it in private, not in public. Pointers? Source material? I'm willing to listen to facts and understand the context of those facts. http://www.interglobal.org/weblog/archives/003274.html Right. You *are* repeating the lies of the earlier post in an effort to make them stick. Shame on you. Or maybe you are just a rabid unthinking supporter of anything written by the hacks who did the hack job on Kennedy? SO, I'll cut you a break and repeat the facts as they areally are. Did you read the pointer they used as a basis for their assasination of Kennedy's commitment to space? Obviously not, because that pointer clearly shows the sound-bites they quote are read out of context. Here's how it went down, as pointed out the the JFK Libarary librarians on the very pointer you provide... Advisors gave Kennedy a preliminary estimate of what going to moon would cost. After all, he doesn't want to commit the nation to an impossible or exorbitantly costly task. He got a number he could live with. He made his speech to Congress. NASA submitted a supplemental budget to achieve this goal following his speech, after he sent a request to LBJ. The supplemental budget was far larger than the Huntsville team came up with. Now, the tape the article you cite referred to was recorded in a meeting that discussed this supplemental budget! How are we to take this? Well, as I mentioned before, imagine you are thinking about a new car. You call a dealership you trust. They say they can put you into the car of your dreams for $350 per month. To you this sounds great. Just the figure you were thinking. Just come down and sign the paperwork. Done and done you say. You get down to the dealership and you find the dealer omitted certain costs he didn't tell you about on the phone. The real price is $650 per month! This is the situation the new President found himself in. What did he do? He stayed and negotiated. Why? Because he really wanted the new car - the trip to the moon and the other things like nuclear rockets, space dominance. See? If he wasn't really committed to the goal of space travel, he would have back pedaled. But he was committed, so he stayed and negotiated. So, here you are at the dealer. You're really committed to the new car you love. So, you stay and negotiate. How would that negotiation go? Clearly you'd be trying to cut costs. You'd say you don't need the DVD player and the color LCD screens in the seatbacks. You don't need the seat heaters. You go with cloth, not leather. You drop the navigation system. See? You tell the salesman all the things you can live without for now. The result, you buy the car for $450 per month. This is precisely what JFK was doing in the meeting. Listen to the entire 73 minutes. Compare and contrast what was said there to speeches before and after this meeting. (a very few of them posted below) Plainly the man was committed to a larger vision and he limited his budget requests to about 4% of GDP. The tape, quoted out of context, would be like someone taping you when you were negotiating at the dealership. You'd hear a lot of "No" and "That's too expensive" and "I don't want that" - someone could record this conversation and play it to grandkids who never knew you to prove you didn't want a car you really loved. Kennedy was committed not only to the development of space as a frontier for humanity, but also to world peace, the end of poverty and injustice throughout the world, and to civil rights, ending injustice and poverty at home, and the end of organized crime in the United States. In short, he felt the United States role in the last half of the twentieth century was to enable the dreams of humanity and the fulfill the promise of democracy, science, and humanism. For all of these things he was killed - and those who killed him are now trying to undermine his memory. Character assasination following the assasination of a great man. Check out what JFK had to say about space throughout his 1000 days and you'll see he had a much larger vision that was clearly supported by the Saturn and Nova and Rover rocket programs, while he was alive; News Conference Number 58 President John F. Kennedy State Department Auditorium Washington, D.C. July 17, 1963 4:00 P.M. EDST (Wednesday) 410 In Attendance 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. The point of the matter always has been not only of our excitement or interest in being on the moon; 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. QUESTION: What about the second part of my question? THE PRESIDENT: The second question is what cooperation we would be willing to carry on with the Soviet Union. We have said before to the Soviet Union that we would be very interested in cooperation. As a matter of fact, finally, after a good many weeks of discussion, an agreement was worked out on an exchange of information with regard to weather, but we have never been able to go into more detail. The kind of cooperative effort which would be required for the Soviet Union and the United States together to go to the moon would require a breaking down of a good many barriers of suspicion and distrust and hostility which exist between the Communist world and ourselves. There is no evidence as yet that those barriers will come down, although quite obviously we would like to see them come down. Obviously, if the Soviet Union were an open society, as we are, that kind of cooperation could exist, and I would welcome it. I would welcome it. I don't see it as yet, unfortunately. Address at Rice University on the Nation's Space Effort President John F. Kennedy Houston, Texas September 12, 1962 President Pitzer, Mr. Vice President, Governor, Congressman Thomas, Senator Wiley, and Congressman Miller, Mr. Webb, Mr. Bell, scientists, distinguished guests, and ladies and gentlemen: I appreciate your president having made me an honorary visiting professor, and I will assure you that my first lecture will be very brief. I am delighted to be here and I'm particularly delighted to be here on this occasion. We meet at a college noted for knowledge, in a city noted for progress, in a State noted for strength, and we stand in need of all three, for we meet in an hour of change and challenge, in a decade of hope and fear, in an age of both knowledge and ignorance. The greater our knowledge increases, the greater our ignorance unfolds. Despite the striking fact that most of the scientists that the world has ever known are alive and working today, despite the fact that this Nation¹s own scientific manpower is doubling every 12 years in a rate of growth more than three times that of our population as a whole, despite that, the vast stretches of the unknown and the unanswered and the unfinished still far outstrip our collective comprehension. No man can fully grasp how far and how fast we have come, but condense, if you will, the 50,000 years of man¹s recorded history in a time span of but a half a century. Stated in these terms, we know very little about the first 40 years, except at the end of them advanced man had learned to use the skins of animals to cover them. Then about 10 years ago, under this standard, man emerged from his caves to construct other kinds of shelter. Only five years ago man learned to write and use a cart with wheels. Christianity began less than two years ago. The printing press came this year, and then less than two months ago, during this whole 50-year span of human history, the steam engine provided a new source of power. Newton explored the meaning of gravity. Last month electric lights and telephones and automobiles and airplanes became available. Only last week did we develop penicillin and television and nuclear power, and now if America¹s new spacecraft succeeds in reaching Venus, we will have literally reached the stars before midnight tonight. This is a breathtaking pace, and such a pace cannot help but create new ills as it dispels old, new ignorance, new problems, new dangers. Surely the opening vistas of space promise high costs and hardships, as well as high reward. So it is not surprising that some would have us stay where we are a little longer to rest, to wait. But this city of Houston, this State of Texas, this country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them. This country was conquered by those who moved forward--and so will space. William Bradford, speaking in 1630 of the founding of the Plymouth Bay Colony, said that all great and honorable actions are accompanied with great difficulties, and both must be enterprised and overcome with answerable courage. If this capsule history of our progress teaches us anything, it is that man, in his quest for knowledge and progress, is determined and cannot be deterred. The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in the race for space. Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial revolutions, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to be a part of it--we mean to lead it. For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace. We have vowed that we shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding. Yet the vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we in this Nation are first, and, therefore, we intend to be first. In short, our leadership in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world's leading space-faring nation. We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say the we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours. There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation many never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too. It is for these reasons that I regard the decision last year to shift our efforts in space from low to high gear as among the most important decisions that will be made during my incumbency in the office of the Presidency. In the last 24 hours we have seen facilities now being created for the greatest and most complex exploration in man's history. We have felt the ground shake and the air shattered by the testing of a Saturn C-1 booster rocket, many times as powerful as the Atlas which launched John Glenn, generating power equivalent to 10,000 automobiles with their accelerators on the floor. We have seen the site where five F-1 rocket engines, each one as powerful as all eight engines of the Saturn combined, will be clustered together to make the advanced Saturn missile, assembled in a new building to be built at Cape Canaveral as tall as a 48 story structure, as wide as a city block, and as long as two lengths of this field. Within these last 19 months at least 45 satellites have circled the earth. Some 40 of them were "made in the United States of America" and they were far more sophisticated and supplied far more knowledge to the people of the world than those of the Soviet Union. The Mariner spacecraft now on its way to Venus is the most intricate instrument in the history of space science. The accuracy of that shot is comparable to firing a missile from Cape Canaveral and dropping it in this stadium between the the 40-yard lines. Transit satellites are helping our ships at sea to steer a safer course. Tiros satellites have given us unprecedented warnings of hurricanes and storms, and will do the same for forest fires and icebergs. We have had our failures, but so have others, even if they do not admit them. And they may be less public. To be sure, we are behind, and will be behind for some time in manned flight. But we do not intend to stay behind, and in this decade, we shall make up and move ahead. The growth of our science and education will be enriched by new knowledge of our universe and environment, by new techniques of learning and mapping and observation, by new tools and computers for industry, medicine, the home as well as the school. Technical institutions, such as Rice, will reap the harvest of these gains. And finally, the space effort itself, while still in its infancy, has already created a great number of new companies, and tens of thousands of new jobs. Space and related industries are generating new demands in investment and skilled personnel, and this city and this State, and this region, will share greatly in this growth. What was once the furthest outpost on the old frontier of the West will be the furthest outpost on the new frontier of science and space. Houston, your City of Houston, with its Manned Spacecraft Center, will become the heart of a large scientific and engineering community. During the next 5 years the National Aeronautics and Space Administration expects to double the number of scientists and engineers in this area, to increase its outlays for salaries and expenses to $60 million a year; to invest some $200 million in plant and laboratory facilities; and to direct or contract for new space efforts over $1 billion from this Center in this City. To be sure, all this costs us all a good deal of money. This year¹s space budget is three times what it was in January 1961, and it is greater than the space budget of the previous eight years combined. That budget now stands at $5,400 million a year--a staggering sum, though somewhat less than we pay for cigarettes and cigars every year. Space expenditures will soon rise some more, from 40 cents per person per week to more than 50 cents a week for every man, woman and child in the United Stated, for we have given this program a high national priority--even though I realize that this is in some measure an act of faith and vision, for we do not now know what benefits await us. But if I were to say, my fellow citizens, that we shall send to the moon, 240,000 miles away from the control station in Houston, a giant rocket more than 300 feet tall, the length of this football field, made of new metal alloys, some of which have not yet been invented, capable of standing heat and stresses several times more than have ever been experienced, fitted together with a precision better than the finest watch, carrying all the equipment needed for propulsion, guidance, control, communications, food and survival, on an untried mission, to an unknown celestial body, and then return it safely to earth, re-entering the atmosphere at speeds of over 25,000 miles per hour, causing heat about half that of the temperature of the sun--almost as hot as it is here today--and do all this, and do it right, and do it first before this decade is out--then we must be bold. I'm the one who is doing all the work, so we just want you to stay cool for a minute. [laughter] However, I think we're going to do it, and I think that we must pay what needs to be paid. I don't think we ought to waste any money, but I think we ought to do the job. And this will be done in the decade of the sixties. It may be done while some of you are still here at school at this college and university. It will be done during the term of office of some of the people who sit here on this platform. But it will be done. And it will be done before the end of this decade. I am delighted that this university is playing a part in putting a man on the moon as part of a great national effort of the United States of America. Many years ago the great British explorer George Mallory, who was to die on Mount Everest, was asked why did he want to climb it. He said, "Because it is there." Well, space is there, and we're going to climb it, and the moon and the planets are there, and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there. And, therefore, as we set sail we ask God's blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked. Thank you. News Conference Number 63 President John F. Kennedy State Department Auditorium Washington, D.C. October 31, 1963 4:00 P.M. EDT (Thursday) 304 In Attendance QUESTION: Mr. President, do you think that Premier Khrushchev has actually taken the Soviet Union out of the so-called moon race, and in any case, do you think that the United States should proceed as if there were a moon race? THE PRESIDENT: I didn't read that into his statement. I thought his statement was rather cautiously worded and I did not get any assurances that Mr. Khrushchev or the Soviet Union were out of the space race at all. I think it is remarkable that some people who were so unwilling to accept our Test Ban Treaty, where there was a very adequate area of verification of whatever the Soviet Union was doing, were perfectly ready to accept Mr. Khrushchev's very guarded and careful and cautious remark that he was taking himself out of the space race, and use that as an excuse for us to abandon our efforts. The fact of the matter is that the Soviets have made an intensive effort in space, and there is every indication that they are continuing and that they have the potential to continue, I would read Mr. Khrushchev's remarks very carefully. I think that he said before anyone went to the moon, there should be adequate preparation. We agree with that. In my opinion, the space program we have is essential to the security of the United States, because, as I have said many times before, it is not a question of going to the moon. It is a question of having the competence to master this environment. I would not make any bets at all upon Soviet intentions. I think that our experience has been that we wait for deeds, unless we have a system of verification, and, we have no idea whether the Soviet Union is going to make a race for the moon or whether it is going to attempt an even greater program. I think we ought to stay with our program. I think that is the best answer to Mr. Khrushchev. QUESTION: Mr. President, it still continues to be the fact that we have had no responses to your proposal for a joint moon exploration? THE PRESIDENT: That is correct. In addition, the two astronauts of the Soviet Union earlier that week had made a statement saying the Soviet Union was prepared to go on lunar expeditions, so I think we should not disregard our whole carefully worked out program which is being carried on very impressively in Huntsville, Alabama, and other places, merely because Mr. Khrushchev gave a rather Delphic interview to some correspondents. News Conference #10 By President John F. Kennedy State Department Auditorium, Washington, D.C. Friday, April 21, 1961, 10:00 a.m. EST QUESTION: Mr. President, you don't seem to be pushing the Space Program nearly as energetically now as you suggested during the campaign that you thought it should be pushed. In view of the feeling of many people in this country that we must do everything we can to catchup with the Russians as soon as possible, do you anticipate applying any sort of crash program? THE PRESIDENT: We have added, I think it was 130 million dollars to the budget on Space several weeks ago, which provides some speed-up for Saturn, and some speed-up for Nova, and some speed-up for Rover. And I will say that the budget for space next year will be around two billion dollars. Now we are now, and have been for some time, attempting to make a determination as to -- in developing larger boosters, whether the emphasis should be put on chemical, nuclear rockets or liquid fuel, how much this would cost, and some of these programs have been estimated to be between twenty and forty billion dollars. We are attempting to make a determination as to which program offers the best hope before we embark on it, because you may commit a relatively small sum of money now for results in 1967, 8 or 9, which will cost you billions of dollars. And therefore the Congress passed yesterday the bill providing for a Space Council which will be chaired by the Vice President. We are attempting to make a determination as to which of these various proposals offers the best hope. And when that determination is made we will then make a recommendation to the Congress. In addition, we have to consider whether there is any program now, regardless of its cost, which offers us hopes of being pioneers in a project. It is possible to spend billions of dollars in these projects in Space to the detriment of other programs and still not be successful. We are behind, as I said before, in large boosters. We have to make a determination whether there is any effort we could make in time or money which could put us first in any new area. Now I don't want to start spending the kind of money that I am talking about without making a determination based on careful scientific judgments as to whether a real success can be achieved or whether because we are so far behind now is this particular race we are going to be second in this decade. So I would say to you that it is a matter of great concern, but I think that before we break through and begin a program which would not reach a completion, as you know, until the end of this decade; for example, trips to the moon, may be ten years off, maybe a little less, but are quite far away and involve, as I say, an enormous sum, I don't think we ought to rush into it and begin them until we really know where we are going to end up. And that study is now being undertaken under the direction of the Vice President. QUESTION: Mr. President, don't you agree that we should try to get to the moon before the Russians, if we can? THE PRESIDENT: If we can get to the moon before the Russians, we should. QUESTION: Isn't it your responsibility to apply the vigorous leadership to spark up this program? THE PRESIDENT: When you say "spark up the program," we first have to make a judgment, based on the best information we can get, whether we can be ahead of the Russians to the moon. We are now talking about a program which may be -- which is many years away. QUESTION: For instance, the Saturn is still on a forty-hour week, isn't it, Mr. President ? THE PRESIDENT: As I say, we have appropriated 126 million dollars more to the Saturn, and we are attempting to find out what else we can do, and Saturn is still going to put us well behind. Saturn does not offer any hope of being first to the moon. Saturn is several years behind the Soviet Union. I can just say to you that regardless of how much money we spend on the Saturn, Saturn is going to put us -- we are still going to be second. The question is whether the nuclear rocket, or other kinds of chemical rockets offer us a better hope of making a jump forward, but we are second, and the Saturn will not put us first. I want, however, to speed up, if we can, on Saturn; and the Vice President is now leading a study to see what we ought to do in this area. Special Message to the Congress on Urgent National Needs President John F. Kennedy Delivered in person before a joint session of Congress May 25, 1961 ***Starting with Section 8*** VIII. DISARMAMENT I cannot end this discussion of defense and armaments without emphasizing our strongest hope: the creation of an orderly world where disarmament will be possible. Our aims do not prepare for war--they are efforts to discourage and resist the adventures of others that could end in war. That is why it is consistent with these efforts that we continue to press for properly safeguarded disarmament measures. At Geneva, in cooperation with the United Kingdom, we have put forward concrete proposals to make clear our wish to meet the Soviets half way in an effective nuclear test ban treaty--the first significant but essential step on the road towards disarmament. Up to now, their response has not been what we hoped, but Mr. Dean returned last night to Geneva, and we intend to go the last mile in patience to secure this gain if we can. Meanwhile, we are determined to keep disarmament high on our agenda--to make an intensified effort to develop acceptable political and technical alternatives to the present arms race. To this end I shall send to the Congress a measure to establish a strengthened and enlarged Disarmament Agency. IX. SPACE Finally, if we are to win the battle that is now going on around the world between freedom and tyranny, the dramatic achievements in space which occurred in recent weeks should have made clear to us all, as did the Sputnik in 1957, the impact of this adventure on the minds of men everywhere, who are attempting to make a determination of which road they should take. Since early in my term, our efforts in space have been under review. With the advice of the Vice President, who is Chairman of the National Space Council, we have examined where we are strong and where we are not, where we may succeed and where we may not. Now it is time to take longer strides--time for a great new American enterprise--time for this nation to take a clearly leading role in space achievement, which in many ways may hold the key to our future on earth. I believe we possess all the resources and talents necessary. But the facts of the matter are that we have never made the national decisions or marshalled the national resources required for such leadership. We have never specified long-range goals on an urgent time schedule, or managed our resources and our time so as to insure their fulfillment. Recognizing the head start obtained by the Soviets with their large rocket engines, which gives them many months of leadtime, and recognizing the likelihood that they will exploit this lead for some time to come in still more impressive successes, we nevertheless are required to make new efforts on our own. For while we cannot guarantee that we shall one day be first, we can guarantee that any failure to make this effort will make us last. We take an additional risk by making it in full view of the world, but as shown by the feat of astronaut Shepard, this very risk enhances our stature when we are successful. But this is not merely a race. Space is open to us now; and our eagerness to share its meaning is not governed by the efforts of others. We go into space because whatever mankind must undertake, free men must fully share. I therefore ask the Congress, above and beyond the increases I have earlier requested for space activities, to provide the funds which are needed to meet the following national goals: First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish. We propose to accelerate the development of the appropriate lunar space craft. We propose to develop alternate liquid and solid fuel boosters, much larger than any now being developed, until certain which is superior. We propose additional funds for other engine development and for unmanned explorations--explorations which are particularly important for one purpose which this nation will never overlook: the survival of the man who first makes this daring flight. But in a very real sense, it will not be one man going to the moon--if we make this judgment affirmatively, it will be an entire nation. For all of us must work to put him there. Secondly, an additional 23 million dollars, together with 7 million dollars already available, will accelerate development of the Rover nuclear rocket. This gives promise of some day providing a means for even more exciting and ambitious exploration of space, perhaps beyond the moon, perhaps to the very end of the solar system itself. Third an additional 50 million dollars will make the most of our present leadership, by accelerating the use of space satellites for world-wide communications. Fourth, an additional 75 million dollars--of which 53 million dollars is for the Weather Bureau--will help give us at the earliest possible time a satellite system for world-wide weather observation. Let it be clear--and this is a judgment which the Members of the Congress must finally make--let it be clear that I am asking the Congress and the country to accept a firm commitment to a new course of action, a course which will last for many years and carry very heavy costs: 531 million dollars in fiscal '62--an estimated seven to nine billion dollars additional over the next five years. If we are to go only half way, or reduce our sights in the face of difficulty, in my judgment it would be better not to go at all. Now this is a choice which this country must make, and I am confident that under the leadership of the Space Committees of the Congress, and the Appropriating Committees, that you will consider the matter carefully. It is a most important decision that we make as a nation. But all of you have lived through the last four years and have seen the significance of space and the adventures in space, and no one can predict with certainty what the ultimate meaning will be of mastery of space. I believe we should go to the moon. But I think every citizen of this country as well as the Members of the Congress should consider the matter carefully in making their judgment, to which we have given attention over many weeks and months, because it is a heavy burden, and there is no sense in agreeing or desiring that the United States take an affirmative position in outer space, unless we are prepared to do the work and bear the burdens to make it successful. If we are not, we should decide today and this year. This decision demands a major national commitment of scientific and technical manpower, materiel and facilities, and the possibility of their diversion from other important activities where they are already thinly spread. It means a degree of dedication, organization and discipline which have not always characterized our research and development efforts. It means we cannot afford undue work stoppages, inflated costs of material or talent, wasteful interagency rivalries, or a high turnover of key personnel. New objectives and new money cannot solve these problems. They could in fact, aggravate them further--unless every scientist, every engineer, every serviceman, every technician, contractor, and civil servant gives his personal pledge that this nation will move forward, with the full speed of freedom, in the exciting adventure of space. X. CONCLUSION In conclusion, let me emphasize one point. It is not a pleasure for any President of the United States, as I am sure it was not a pleasure for my predecessors, to come before the Congress and ask for new appropriations which place burdens on our people. I came to this conclusion with some reluctance. But in my judgment, this is a most serious time in the life of our country and in the life of freedom around the globe, and it is the obligation, I believe, of the President of the United States to at least make his recommendations to the Members of the Congress, so that they can reach their own conclusions with that judgment before them. You must decide yourselves, as I have decided, and I am confident that whether you finally decide in the way that I have decided or not, that your judgment--as my judgment--is reached on what is in the best interests of our country. In conclusion, let me emphasize one point: that we are determined, as a nation in 1961 that freedom shall survive and succeed--and whatever the peril and set-backs, we have some very large advantages. The first is the simple fact that we are on the side of liberty--and since the beginning of history, and particularly since the end of the Second World War, liberty has been winning out all over the globe. A second real asset is that we are not alone. We have friends and allies all over the world who share our devotion to freedom. May I cite as a symbol of traditional and effective friendship the great ally I am about to visit--France. I look forward to my visit to France, and to my discussion with a great Captain of the Western World, President de Gaulle, as a meeting of particular significance, permitting the kind of close and ranging consultation that will strengthen both our countries and serve the common purposes of world-wide peace and liberty. Such serious conversations do not require a pale unanimity--they are rather the instruments of trust and understanding over a long road. A third asset is our desire for peace. It is sincere, and I believe the world knows it. We are proving it in our patience at the test ban table, and we are proving it in the UN where our efforts have been directed to maintaining that organization's usefulness as a protector of the independence of small nations. In these and other instances, the response of our opponents has not been encouraging. Yet it is important to know that our patience at the bargaining table is nearly inexhaustible, though our credulity is limited that our hopes for peace are unfailing, while our determination to protect our security is resolute. For these reasons I have long thought it wise to meet with the Soviet Premier for a personal exchange of views. A meeting in Vienna turned out to be convenient for us both; and the Austrian government has kindly made us welcome. No formal agenda is planned and no negotiations will be undertaken; but we will make clear America's enduring concern is for both peace and freedom--that we are anxious to live in harmony with the Russian people--that we seek no conquests, no satellites, no riches--that we seek only the day when "nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." Finally, our greatest asset in this struggle is the American people--their willingness to pay the price for these programs--to understand and accept a long struggle--to share their resources with other less fortunate people--to meet the tax levels and close the tax loopholes I have requested--to exercise self-restraint instead of pushing up wages or prices, or over-producing certain crops, or spreading military secrets, or urging unessential expenditures or improper monopolies or harmful work stoppages--to serve in the Peace Corps or the Armed Services or the Federal Civil Service or the Congress--to strive for excellence in their schools, in their cities and in their physical fitness and that of their children--to take part in Civil Defense--to pay higher postal rates, and higher payroll taxes and higher teachers' salaries, in order to strengthen our society--to show friendship to students and visitors from other lands who visit us and go back in many cases to be the future leaders, with an image of America--and I want that image, and I know you do, to be affirmative and positive--and, finally, to practice democracy at home, in all States, with all races, to respect each other and to protect the Constitutional rights of all citizens. I have not asked for a single program which did not cause one or all Americans some inconvenience, or some hardship, or some sacrifice. But they have responded and you in the Congress have responded to your duty--and I feel confident in asking today for a similar response to these new and larger demands. It is heartening to know, as I journey abroad, that our country is united in its commitment to freedom and is ready to do its duty. Address Before the 18th General Assembly of the United Nations President John F. Kennedy New York September 20, 1963 **Starting just before discussion about Space Development** In these and other ways, let us move up the steep and difficult path toward comprehensive disarmament, securing mutual confidence through mutual verification, and building the institutions of peace as we dismantle the engines of war. We must not let failure to agree on all points delay agreements where agreement is possible. And we must not put forward proposals for propaganda purposes. Finally, in a field where the United States and the Soviet Union have a special capacity--in the field of space--there is room for new cooperation, for further joint efforts in the regulation and exploration of space. I include among these possibilities a joint expedition to the moon. Space offers no problems of sovereignty; by resolution of this Assembly, the members of the United Nations have foresworn any claim to territorial rights in outer space or on celestial bodies, and declared that international law and the United Nations Charter will apply. Why, therefore, should man's first flight to the moon be a matter of national competition? Why should the United States and the Soviet Union, in preparing for such expeditions, become involved in immense duplications of research, construction, and expenditure? Surely we should explore whether the scientists and astronauts of our two countries--indeed of all the world--cannot work together in the conquest of space, sending someday in this decade to the moon not the representatives of a single nation, but the representatives of all of our countries. All these and other new steps toward peaceful cooperation may be possible. Most of them will require on our part full consultation with our allies--for their interests are as much involved as our own, and we will not make an agreement at their expense. Most of them will require long and careful negotiation. And most of them will require a new approach to the cold war--a desire not to "bury" one's adversary, but to compete in a host of peaceful arenas, in ideas, in production, and ultimately in service to all mankind. The contest will continue--the contest between those who see a monolithic world and those who believe in diversity--but it should be a contest in leadership and responsibility instead of destruction, a contest in achievement instead of intimidation. Speaking for the United States of America, I welcome such a contest. For we believe that truth is stronger than error--and that freedom is more enduring than coercion. And in the contest for a better life, all the world can be a winner. **additional material deleted** For the complete text see; http://www.jfklibrary.org/j092063.htm News Conference Number 46 President John F. Kennedy State Department Auditorium Washington, D.C. December 12, 1962 4:00 PM EDT (Wednesday) 332 In Attendance QUESTION: Mr. President, after your trip to Los Alamos Laboratory, New Mexico, is it your intention to ask for more money to speed up Project Rover, or for nuclear propulsion in space? THE PRESIDENT: We are going to let these tests go on of the reactor. These tests should be completed by July. If they are successful, then we will put more money into the program, which would involve the Nerva and Rift, both the engine and the regular machine. We will wait until July, however, to see if these tests are successful. It should be understood that the nuclear rocket, even under the most favorable circumstances, would not play a role in any first lunar landing. This will not come into play until 1970 or '71. It would be useful for future trips to the moon or trips to Mars. But we have a good many areas competing for our available space dollars, and we have to try to channel it into those programs which will bring us a result, first, on our moon landing, and then to consider Mars. News Conference Number 17 President John F. Kennedy State Department Auditorium Washington, D. C. October 11, 1961 At 4:30 P. M. EDST (Wednesday) 396 In Attendance QUESTION: Mr. President, do you feel that the nation has reacted positively to your May 25 appeal to send a man to the moon? And do you feel that progress is being made on projects Mercury and Apollo? THE PRESIDENT: Well, until we have a man on the moon, none of us will be satisfied. But I do believe a major effort is being made. And as I have said before, we started far behind, and we are going to have to wait and see whether we catch up. But I would say that I will continue to be dissatisfied until the goal is reached, and I hope everyone working on the program shares the same view. News Conference Number 62 President John F. Kennedy State Department Auditorium Washington, D.C. Wednesday, October 9, 1963 6:00 P.M. 258 In Attendance QUESTION: Mr. President, will you discuss with Mr. Gromyko the joint moon project proposal that you made before the U.N., and, if not, will that be pursued through some other channels? THE PRESIDENT: We have received no response to our -- to that proposal, which followed other proposals made on other occasions. As I said, our space program from the beginning has been oriented towards the peaceful use of space. That is the way the National Space Agency was set up. That is the position we have taken since my predecessor administration. I said this summer that we were anxious to cooperate in the peaceful exploration of space, but to do so, of course, requires the breakdown of a good many barriers which still exist. It is our hope those barriers, which represent barriers of some hostility, some suspicion, secrecy and the rest, will come down. If they came down, of course. it would be possible for us to cooperate. So far, as you know, the cooperation has been limited to some exchange of information on weather and other rather technical areas. We have had no indication, in short, that the Soviet Union is disposed to enter into the kind of relationship which would make a joint exploration of space or to the moon possible. But I think It is important that the United States continue to emphasize its peaceful interest and its preparation to go quite far in attempting to end the barrier which has existed between the Communist world and the West and to attempt to bring as much as we can the Communist world into the free world diversity which we seek. So the matter may come up, but I must say we have had no response which would indicate that they are going to take us up on it. News Conference Number 60 President John F. Kennedy State Department Auditorium Washington, D.C. August 20, 1963 4:00 P.M. EDST (Tuesday) 336 In Attendance QUESTION: Mr. President, apparently there is some consideration being given to the United States and Soviet Russia collaborating on the moon shot. I wonder, in view of that, if there is any plan to have Soviet observers when the Apollo moon shot tests start at White Sands, New Mexico? THE PRESIDENT: No. We have not had any success in reaching any agreement. The kind of agreement to really be meaningful would require a good deal of inspection on both sides, and there is no evidence as yet that the Soviet Union is prepared to accept that. All we have ever gotten was an agreement to exchange weather information. We haven't had anything more substantial. News Conference Number 25 President John F. Kennedy State Department Auditorium Washington, D. C. February 21, 1962 4:00 P. M. EST (Wednesday) 375 In Attendance THE PRESIDENT: I have one statement. It is increasingly clear that the impact of Col. Glenn's magnificent achievement yesterday goes far beyond our own time and our own country. The success of this flight, the new knowledge it will give us, and the new steps which can new be undertaken, will affect life on this planet for many years to come. This country has received more than thirty messages of congratulations from other Heads of State all over the world which recognize the global benefits of this extraordinary accomplishment. And I want to express my thanks to them, and at the same time pay tribute to the international cooperation entailed in the successful operation of the Mercury tracking network, and express particular appreciation to those governments which participated in this international program by permitting the location of 18 such stations all around the world, including those in the Grand Canary Islands. Nigeria, Zanzibar, Australia, Mexico, Bermuda, and the Canton Islands in the Pacific. One of the messages that I received was from Chairman Khrushchev of the Soviet Union, suggesting that it would be beneficial to the advance of science if our countries could work together in the exploration of Space. I am replying to his message today, and I regard it as most encouraging, this proposal for international cooperation in Space exploration, including specifically Soviet-American cooperation which I spelled out in my State of the Union Message of last year, and in my Address to the United Nations. You may recall that last year, in January of 1961, in the State of the Union Address, I said, "Specifically I now invite all nations, including the Soviet Union, to join with us in developing a weather prediction program, and a new communication satellite program, and in the preparation for probing the distant planets of Mars and Venus, probes which may some day unlock the deepest secrets of the Universe. Previous to that, under the previous administration, many suggestions were made for international cooperation. On one occasion, the Vice President, who was then Senator Johnson, acting on behalf of President Eisenhower, presented a proposal. to the United Nations for the peaceful uses of Outer Space. We believe that when men reach beyond this planet they should leave their national differences behind them. All men will benefit, if we can invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. We look forward to visiting with Colonel Glenn on Friday and welcoming him to Washington next Monday. It has been said that peace has her victories as well as war, and I think all of us can take pride and satisfaction in this victory of technology and the human spirit. QUESTION: Mr. President, can you tell us the nature of your actual response to Mr. Khrushchev on this proposal? THE PRESIDENT: We will indicate in the response our desire that Space be explored peacefully, and that we will be glad in the United Nations and in any other forum, to discuss how this can best be done so that this new ocean which I referred to yesterday may be a peaceful one. I think it's particularly important now, before Space becomes devoted to the uses of war. So we will be prepared to discuss this matter, as I say, at the United Nations, or bilaterally, or in any other way in which this common cause can be advanced. QUESTION: Mr. President, on the same subject, do you think it would be wise, or can you conceive of a situation where we would have Russian observers at a Space shot by this country without United States observers being allowed to view up close a Russian shot? THE PRESIDENT: As you know, today we permit observers from all countries, members of the press from all countries, to come and watch our shots, and this has been a very open procedure. And one of the reasons why I think we all take satisfaction is because we took our chances out in the open, and our delays, which were well publicized and which may have caused some satisfaction to those who were not our well-wishers--it seems to me we have double pleasure when it goes well. I do feel that of course if there is any cooperation it must be in the sense we are now discussing, it must be wholly bilateral, and I think that that, of course, will be one of the matters which we will discuss. QUESTION: Mr. President, pursuing this subject even further, do you have any indication beyond the rather nebulous but hopeful remarks of Mr. Khrushchev in his congratulations message that they are really willing to get down to cases in cooperation in these areas? One recalls that they did actually do something in this respect in the International Geophysical Year, and I just wondered if between the time of your State of the Union Message and now, any other tangible developments have come up beyond his--or in addition to his statement yesterday? THE PRESIDENT: No, we have seen no evidence that we would be able to confidently expect, in the last twelve months, that this kind of cooperation would take place; but we, I might say now, have more chips on the table than we did some time ago, so perhaps the prospects are improving. QUESTION: Mr. President, can you say whether up to this day the International Scientific Community, or American scientists, have received any data from the Soviet space flights of Titov and Gagarin? THE PRESIDENT: You mean other than those we might have picked up ourselves? QUESTION: Yes. I mean through the International Scientific Community or any published work by the Soviets? THE PRESIDENT: Well, except for those that may have been published. I am not sure that we have. But before I give you a final answer, perhaps I can ask Mr. Salinger and Mr. Hatcher to see if before the end of the Press Conference we could find out if there has been any more detailed information made available to us or to anybody else. So I'll come back to that. QUESTION: Mr. President, on a more local level, the Washington Daily News suggested today that since Colonel Glenn's achievements illustrate the ultimate in physical and scientific discipline, that all the school kids and all the surrounding schools in Maryland, Virginia and Washington be let out to welcome him here Monday. Would you go along with that suggestion? THE PRESIDENT: Well, we always follow the Washington Daily News -(laughter) -- and I believe that that is being done. In this particular area -Washington, D, C. -- and perhaps those that may be nearby in Maryland and Virginia, we would be glad if they followed the example. *** QUESTION: Mr. President, if we could go back to the Space question, we have been talking about a race in Space, for example, a race between the United States and Russia to get to the moon. Suppose now we should get this international cooperation that you have been talking about, what form would it take? Would it go so far, for example, as a joint United States-Russia mission to the moon? Would it go that far? Or just how would it work? THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think it would be premature to attempt to suggest, because all we have now, so far, is an indication of interest, and we know from long experience that its more difficult to transform these general expressions into specific agreements. So I think that we should wait until we see what response we get from the Soviets to our answer to Mr. Khrushchev, and then decide what it is we can do. We are spending billions of dollars in Space, and if it is possible to assure that Space is peaceful, and that it can be used for the benefit of everyone, then the United States must respond to any opportunity we have to insure that it's peaceful. But I can't give you an answer until we see whether the rain follows the warm wind in this case. News Conference Number 23 President John F. Kennedy State Department Auditorium Washington, D.C. February 7, 1962 4:00 P.M. EST (Wednesday) 385 In Attendance QUESTION: Mr. President, we have had several apparent setbacks and delays in our space field, with the attempted moon shot, the multiple satellite shot, and the postponement of the astronaut launching. What is your evaluation of our progress in space at this time, and have we changed our time-table for landing a man on the moon? THE PRESIDENT: As I said from the beginning, we have been behind, and of course we continue to be behind, and we are running into the difficulties which come from starting late. We, however, are going to proceed. We are making a maximum effort, as you know, because the expenditures in our space program are enormous. To the best of my ability, the time schedule, at least our hope, has not been changed by the recent setbacks. What Would JFK Do? With Theodore C. Sorensen Moderated by Joseph Nye John F. Kennedy Library and Foundation Challenges at Home and Abroad Series April 21, 2002 It is also true that, during his presidency, Kennedy's critics on the right said he was pursuing a no-win policy, particularly if he wasn't going to use all these arms, he wasn't going to win any wars. But it was Kennedy's most basic belief, not shared by Air Force generals LeMay and Power, that no one could win a nuclear war, that neither side could amass so much destructive power to be unleashed on the other side that the other side would not be capable of retaliating with equal power, leaving both countries totally destroyed, uninhabitable, surviving as bare shreds of their former selves. In that unwinnable situation, Kennedy did not pursue measures that could lead to, or even aim at winning a nuclear war, because he knew no such victory was possible. That was the doctrine that prevailed in those days, Mutually Assured Destruction, MAD for short. And it was MAD. Mad that the world would be hanging by such a threat, living under such circumstances, only if reasonable people prevailed on both sides. He had read, when it first came out, Barbara Tuchman's book, The Guns of August, the story of World War I and its spread without reason or logic with the diplomats asking themselves, "How did it all happen?" And no one knew. He made sure that all of us working with him had read that book and understood his concern. He had two words that he used often, his twin concerns: One was the word "escalation"; the fear that a local war might escalate into a regional and then into a global conflict, and from a conventional into a nuclear conflict. And the other, tied to that, was the word "miscalculation"; the fear that one side or both sides might miscalculate the other side's most vital interests, and likely response, and the power available to them. And he even referred to this, without using either word, in the inaugural address, when he warned of the danger of engulfing all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction. The word "accidental" there did not refer to mechanical error, or technical error, a bomb causing to go off or a rocket to be launched by mistake, it referred to human error, where a mistake would be the last ever made. In that context, it was very interesting to read, just a couple of weeks ago, a newly declassified document in which Henry Kissinger on his mission to China was explaining to Chou en Lai the previous policy of the Eisenhower-Dulles Administration, the Cold War policy; which Henry said, and I believe quite accurately, was for the United States to involve itself in every contest in every country in the world, to be the principal force in every such conflict. We now know that to a very large extent, they had nuclear power in mind as a possible means of intervention in many of those struggles, including Indochina. The Kennedy Administration which succeeded the Eisenhower Administration, almost immediately, both in military directives and in foreign policy, reversed that approach as simply not being feasible. Not feasible? Does that confirm that Kennedy was in fact a pragmatist, a man without values, who simply advocated what would work? It's a term that was often applied to him. It's a term he sometimes applied to himself (although I prefer his self-description as "an idealist without illusions"). A phrase I wouldn't mind applying to myself. But I suppose that pursuing a foreign policy that was politically acceptable, that was congressionally approvable, that was militarily feasible, sounds more like a pragmatic foreign policy than anything else. And yet when you think about the far-reaching goals John F. Kennedy set forth in that inaugural, and throughout his Administration, some of which I'm going to come to shortly -- talking, for example, about the abolition of world poverty; talking about establishing a world of law; implementing the notion of negotiating solutions to bitter conflicts; even communicating with one's adversary in the midst of conflict – All that would indicate that there was more than a hardheaded pragmatist in charge. Were all of his goals achieved? No. They were not. I'm talking about the unfinished agenda today. Perhaps he did not always take sufficiently into consideration human imperfection and suspicions. Perhaps he did not always take into consideration our own country's checks and balances which make it difficult to follow through on far-reaching changes and goals, or the two-party system, and the ticking clock. No, he didn't achieve all of those goals. But as the poet Browning has said, "A man's reach must exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?" Browning? Yes, this supposed pragmatist who consulted when necessary military planners or political pollsters, also consulted poets. He also consulted his conscience. He even consulted his special counsel and speechwriter on occasions. News Conference Number 53 President John F. Kennedy State Department Auditorium Washington, D.C. April 3, 1963 4:00 PM EST (Wednesday) 327 In Attendance QUESTION: By when do you think we will be first in space, and in view of Russia's current lunar probe, do you think we will beat Russia with a man to the moon? THE PRESIDENT: I don't know. We started well behind. Quite obviously they had a tremendous advantage in big boosters and we are still behind, because obviously we haven't gotten our new boosters yet, which we won't get until 1964, '65 and ‘66. We will have to wait and see, but I can assure you it is an uphill race at best, because we started behind, and I am sure the Russians are making a major effort. Today's indication of what they are doing makes me feel that their program is a major one, and it is not spongy, and I think that we would have to make the same ourselves. So I would say we are behind now, and we will continue to be behind, but if we make a major effort we have a chance, I believe, to be ahead at the end of this decade, and that is where I think we ought to be. News Conference Number 41 President John F. Kennedy State Department Auditorium Washington, D.C. August 22, 1962 4:00 PM EDST (Wednesday) 365 In Attendance QUESTION: Mr. President, the Soviet Union's latest exploit, the launching of two men within 24 hours, seems to have caused a great deal of pessimism in the United States. You hear people say that we are now a poor second to Russia. How do you size up the situation, Mr. President, for the present and the future? THE PRESIDENT: We are second to the Soviet Union in long-range boosters. I have said from the beginning we started late. We have been behind. It is a tremendous job to build a booster of the size that the Soviet Union is talking about, and also have it much larger size, which we are presently engaged in the Saturn program. So we are behind and we are going to be behind for a while. But I believe that before the end of this decade is out, the United States will be ahead. But it is costing us a tremendous amount of money. We are presently making a tremendous effort in research and development. But we just might as well realize that when we started last, last year as you know we made a decision to go to the moon, with bipartisan support, and it is going to take us quite a while to catch up with a very advanced program which the Soviets are directing and there is no indication the Soviets are going to quit. So there they started with a lead and they determined to maintain it. We have started late, and we are trying to not only-- we are trying to overtake them, and I think by the end of the decade we will, but we are in for some further periods when we are going to be behind. Anybody who attempts to suggest that we are not behind misleads the American people. We are well behind, but we are making a tremendous effort. We increased, after I took office, after four months, we increased the budget for space by 50 per cent over that of my predecessor. The fact of the matter is that this year we submitted a space budget which was greater than the combined eight space budgets of the previous eight years. So this country is making a vast effort which is going to be much bigger next year, and the years to come, and represents a very heavy burden upon us all. But we might as well recognize that we are behind now and we are going to be for a while. What we have to do is concentrate our efforts. I think we are doing that, but we can always do better. QUESTION: Mr. President, in that same area, would you agree with Senator Cannon and others who believe that the space program not only should be expanded, but should be militarized in some thing like a Manhattan District crash program? THE PRESIDENT: Well, now, we are sending, for military purposes in space, three times what we were in 1960, about $1.5 billion. The two--at least at present--the two important points that should be kept in mind are, one, the ability to build a large booster which can put a larger satellite into the atmosphere. That is being done. NASA is doing that, although there has been, of course, under the TITAN 3 contract a booster program for the military. In addition, the guidance, navigation, et cetera , et cetera, is extremely important. That we are making a major effort in. So that I recognize that there are those who oppose this program and then suddenly a month later say we ought to suddenly go ahead on a different basis. The fact of the matter is that 40 per cent of the R&D funds in this country are being spent for space, and that is a tremendous amount of money and a tremendous concentration of our scientific effort. I am not saying that we can't always do better, but I think the American people ought to understand the billions of dollars we are talking about, which I believe a month ago was mentioned as a great boondoggle. I think it is important, vital, and there is a great interrelationship between space, military, and the peaceful use of space. But we are concentrating on the peaceful use of space which will also help us protect our security if that becomes essential. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Moon key to space future?
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. 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"] ... ... 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. To dominate, it's necessary only to do more than the other guy. Having landed on the moon and demonstrated dominance, he would have had no reason to go beyond that until the Soviets caught up. 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. LBJ, JFK's successor, was also hawkish about space dominance: "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. I see no reason to believe that JFK would have made much difference. -- Ted Hall |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) | Stuf4 | Space Shuttle | 150 | July 28th 04 07:30 AM |
European high technology for the International Space Station | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | May 10th 04 02:40 PM |
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 18 | February 14th 04 04:28 AM |
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | December 27th 03 02:32 PM |