INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in fypewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor qualify illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough. substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g.. maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher qualify 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

Bell & Howell Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Artx>r, Ml 48106-1346 USA

mvQ800-521-0600

CONESTOGA WAGONS TO THE MOON: THE FRONTIER, THE AMERICAN SPACE PROGRAM, AND NATIONAL IDENTITY

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the

Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By

Susan Landrum Mangus, B.A., M.A.

*****

The Ohio State University 1999

Dissertation Committee: Apj^roved by Professor Michael J. Hogan, Adviser

Professor Mansel Blackford

Professor William Childs Department of History invn Number: 9951694

Copyright 1999 by Mangus, Susan Landrum

All r^hts reserved

UMI Microform 9951694 Copyright 2000 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

Bell & Howell Wbrmation and Learning Company 300 NorthZeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346 Copyright by Susan Landrum Mangus 1999 ABSTRACT

In the late 1950s and 1960s, the United States

committed to a national effort to explore space. The

space program's timing and sense of urgency were directly linked to the Soviet Union's early space achievements, but Cold War considerations failed to account for most Americans' enthusiasm for space exploration. Manned space flight, and particularly the goal of landing a man on the moon, captured

Americans' imaginations. Space exploration was an extension of tiihe nation's frontier heritage, with the same economic, political, and social benefits of past American frontiers.

NASA incorporated frontier language into its discussions of the American space program, targeting presidents, the Congress, and the general public.

Just as the majority of Americans connected the frontier past to the nation's character, NASA's leadership believed that the frontier had molded the

11 nation's identity, making the United States unique within the world. This belief permeated the agency's discussions of its mission. Administrators introduced a version of Frederick Jackson Turner's frontier thesis to describe the benefits of the new space

"frontier" and employed popular frontier images to make the space program more exciting for their audience. Presidents, the Congress, and the majority of American citizens agreed with the agency's perceptions of the frontier's importance in United

States history and were convinced that space was the nation's new frontier. Despite growing opposition to space budgets by the late 1960s and 1970s, most

Americans still accepted NASA's view of America's frontier legacy and its connections to space.

The Cold War provided a nurturing environment for the American space program in the 1950s and 1960s, but

United States' competition with the Soviet Union cannot fully explain why Americans chose to explore space. The nation faced many challenges during this time period, not only from the Soviet Union but also as a result of domestic changes, such as the Civil

Rights and the Women's Movements. In many respects,

i i i Americans faced an identity crisis. Americans in the

1950s and 1960s looked to the space frontier as the solution to their problems-

XV Dedicated to Michael Mangus and Mercury ACBCNOWLEDGMENTS

A number of people have provided support and guidance as I worked on this manuscript, and I want to thank them for their assistance. First are the members of the dissertation committee. Professor

Michael J. Hogan directed my work and provided me with valuable suggestions and assistance. In addition to providing many insights into the historiography of the

American West, Professor Mansel Blackford critiqued my early analyses of NASA's frontier rhetoric. Professor

William Childs helped me to develop more insight into my topic during both the early and late stages of the dissertation process.

Numerous other people have given me support as I worked on this project, and I thank them for sharing their time, patience, and wisdom. Professor Mark

Grimsley's encouragement at an early stage gave me the courage to tackle this project, and Professor John

Burnham likewise provided support. My fellow graduate

VI students, especially Amy Staples and Glenn Dorn, listened to me as I thought through many parts of my research and provided many suggestions which greatly improved the manuscript. The staffs of several archives cheerfully retrieved documents and furnished me with valuable leads. I would especially like to thank those dedicated individuals at the Library of

Congress Manuscript Division, the Smithsonian

Archives, the National Air and Space Museum Library, the Archives of American Aerospace Exploration at the

Virginia Polytechnic and State University, and the

Johnson Space Center Archives at Rice University,

Houston, Texas. The staff of the NASA Historical

Reference Collection at NASA's headquarters in

Washington, D.C., were extremely supportive, especially archivist Lee Saegesser and historian Roger

Launius. The Graduate School at The Ohio State

University provided financial support for some of my research through a Graduate Student Alumni Research

Award.

I would also like to thank my family, who have consistently provided support throughout the long years of research and writing. My parents have always

vii made me feel their pride in my accomplishments, even if they occasionally wondered if I would ever finish.

My grandparents and my sister were always interested in my progress as well, asking how things were going each time we talked. My new family-by-marriage also provided welcome support.

Finally, one person and one cat deserve special recognition, and thus I dedicate my dissertation to them. My husband, Michael Mangus, has been many things to me throughout the dissertation process: friend and confidant, editor and critic, psychologist and cheerleader. I do not have words to express what

I feel about his help and encouragement. I must also thank Mercury, the dissertation mascot cat, who always seemed to know when I needed a little inspiration and support.

vixi VITA

July 17, 1970 ...... Born - Kirkwood, Missouri

1992 B.A. History, The University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina

1994 M.A. History, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

PUBLICATIONS

1. Susan Landrum Mangus, "Although the timing of the space program was due to Cold War considerations, Americans' fascination with space grew out of their beliefs about their frontier heritage," in History in Dispute, vol.11, Post World War 11, ed. Robert J. Allison (Columbia, SC: Gale Research, Inc., 1999).

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: History

Studies in:

United States Diplomatic History Modern United States History European International History

IX TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

A b s t r a c t ...... ii

Dedication...... v

Acknowledgments...... vi

V i t a ...... iv

Introduction...... I

Chapters :

1. The Frontier Myth Takes Root: The Evolution of the Intellectual and Popular Frontiers . .18

From Frontiersman to Cowboy: The Frontier Myth to 1890 ...... 19 The Frontier's Growing Significance: 1890-1930 ...... 27 Competing Frontier Visions: From the 1930s to the 1960s ...... 39 Con clusion...... 51

2. NASA and the Space Frontier: Connecting American History to Space Exploration .... 63

NASA's Roots and the Frontier Tradition . . . 65 Selling Outer Space ...... 69 Audiences Targeted ...... 95 NASA's Motivations and Budget Challenges . .106 Conclus io n ...... 115

3. Balancing Space and the Budget: Presidential Ethetoric and the Space Frontier 137 Eisenhower as Space Scrooge: His Lack of Frontier Imagery ...... 138

Kennedy as Prophet and Hero: Establishing the Frontier Metaphor for Space . . . .144 Johnson, the Space Frontier, and Vietnam . .155 Nixon's Interest in the Space Frontier . . .166 The 1970s and Beyond: In Search of Inspiration...... 173 Conclusion...... 177

4. Congress and Space Exploration: Political Realities Collide with the Frontier Dream . 190

Congressional Enthusiasm and the Early Years of the American Space Program . .192 Influence’s on Congress: The Space Frontier's Salespeople and Critics . . 196 Congress and Public Opinion: How Polls Influenced Space Funding ...... 210 Congressional Responses to External Influences...... 217 Congress and the Space Frontier in the 1970s ...... 232 Conclusion...... 235

5. Beyond Official Rhetoric: The Media, Popular Culture, and the Space Frontier . . 252

The Media Helps to Perpetuate the Space-Frontier M y t h ...... 253 Political Cartoons and Frontier Imagery . .264 Popular Culture Emphasizes the Excitement of S p a c e ...... 269 Conclusion...... 282

Conclusion...... 294

Bibliography ...... 311

XX Introduction

In the 1960s the United States embarked upon a new-

enterprise, an attempt to place Americans on the moon.

Although the space program was in part a response to

Soviet accomplishments, space exploration captivated

Americans for reasons that went far beyond competition

with the communist system. Most Americans saw the

space program as a continuation of their nation's

frontier past, a history that in their imagination had

helped to create a unique American identity and had

reinforced their democratic political system.

Americans defined the frontier broadly. It

included much more than popular frontier symbols such

as Daniel Boone, Conestoga wagons, cowboys and

Indians, and pioneers. As seen by most Americans, the

frontier encompassed the whole experience of European

expansion into North America, beginning with the first

explorers to the New World (most often personified by

Christopher Columbus), and continuing with English

colonization and settlement starting in the seventeenth century. Exploration of the frontier was an "adventurer" a feat performed by "courageous" men and women. At the same time, moreover, the frontier imagery that Americans used to describe the space program was a reflection of the continuing influence of Frederick Jackson Turner's frontier thesis: the exploration of the space frontier could work as a safety valve to ameliorate economic and social problems within the United States. Space could seirve the same purpose as earlier Araerican frontiers, rejuvenating the nation and safeguarding democracy for future generations. In short, the frontier had allowed Americans to develop a unique identity, one that colored their perspective of the world in which they lived.^

Space historians have studied the American space program since the 1960s but have usually accepted Cold

War explanations for why the United States government and its citizens supported the space program. These scholars have not fully investigated the use of frontier imagery in their discussions of American space exploration. This omission can be explained in part because frontier language has permeated many aspects of American culture throughout the twentieth

century— it is so common that its importance is

overlooked. Historians of the American West,

moreover, have tended in recent years to move away

from Turner's frontier thesis to address other

important aspects of Western history, such as the

roles of gender, ethnic diversity, and the environment

in the settlement of the American West. Some scholars

still recognize the importance of the frontier to

American culture, but none have studied the way in

which frontier symbolism was incorporated into

discussions of the space program.

As a study of the cultural implications of the

space program, my work covers familiar territory in a

different way. In looking at frontier symbolism, this

study provides an important explanation of the motivations behind American space exploration. It

also explores the extent to which Americans' beliefs

about their collective past influenced the way in which they understood contemporary events. There are a number of scholarly accounts of the space program, but none fully develops the interaction between the

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the rest of the nation. On the contrary, most previous studies concentrate on the influence of politics and diplomacy on the American space program, specifically looking at the Cold War.

Space advocates of the 1950s and 1960s were not the first Americans to utilize the concept of the frontier for their own purposes. Turner's thesis had proven to be a useful justification for Progressive actions in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Assimilation of the massive numbers of new immigrants had been essential to prevent societal conflict and threats to democracy, especially if the

"free land" that the nation was based on had disappeared as Turner claimed. In the 1930s, New Deal reformers also used frontier arguments to validate their programs. By the 1950s and 1960s, new challenges, such as the Civil Rights Movement and the

United States' role in Vietnam, threatened traditional

American life. In this context, many Americans welcomed space exploration as a new safety valve that would safeguard democratic ideals and hold society together. Historians of the American West have since challenged Turner’s explanation of the nation's history, but few Americans beyond the academy have ever questioned its validity. The frontier, as defined by Turner, has had a powerful grasp on

Americans’ imaginations and cultural identity, and especially their sense of exceptiona1ism. Speaking in

1893, Turner argued that the frontier "experience has been fundamental in the economic, political, and social characteristics of the American people and in the conceptions of their destiny." Frontier exploration had renewed and reinvented Americans, through its promotion of democracy, opportunity, and individuality.^

Ever since Europeans settled the original thirteen colonies in the seventeenth century, Americans have been expansionists. This tendency did not end with the closing of the frontier in the 1890s, Turner claimed, but manifested itself in American foreign policy from that time onward. Nevertheless, Turner viewed the future with trepidation since he and many others thought the frontier had closed with the 1890 census results, thereby leaving no discernable frontier into which Americans could continue to expand. He did not see any possibilities for a new earthly frontier in the next century and wondered what the absence of a new frontier would mean for the nation's future. His twentieth—century followers, however, saw many opportunities for American expansion into outer space, as they were the product of a new technological era that made space exploration a possibility.^

Ray Allen Billington, one of Turner's apostles, also stressed the importance of the frontier. He explained that Americans

with an unusual ' abundancy motivation ' were attracted to the frontiers by the hope of economic and social advancement, the quest for health, a desire for change, a thirst for adventure, and the mystical lure of the unknown, the call of the primitive, the dominance of the explorer impulse.

In speeches, publications, and other forms of communication, NASA and other Americans used similar descriptions to explain why the United States should explore space and land on the moon.'*

Recent historians of the American West, while disputing Turner's interpretation as an accurate description of American history, agree that the frontier has remained a powerful symbol for Americans.

In The Legacy of Conquest. Patricia Nelson Limerick points out that Americans immediately associate the

American West with the concept of the frontier. At the same time, Limerick disputes the accuracy of this view of Western history, choosing instead to analyze westward expansion as a series of conquests of both people and the environment.®

Historian Robert G. Atheam describes the importance of the frontier in another way: "It was also the West of the mind, of the spirit, a concept that for generations had reassured Americans of a future, a place to go, even though most of them would not choose to move. " Athearn believes that the influence of the frontier myth increased with the number of Westerns on television and in movies in the twentieth century. Richard Slotkin expanded on the importance of popular culture, connecting American conceptions of the nation's frontier past and the way in which political leaders have used and manipulated the myth for their own purposes, whether consciously or not.® While historians of the American West have

grappled with the concept of the frontier throughout

the twentieth century^ space historians have usually

taken frontier rhetoric for granted. Instead, studies

of the American space program usually belong to one of

two main categories: (1) histories of the process of

space exploration, covering the chronological,

technical, scientific, and organizational details; or

(2) histories of the political and diplomatic motivations for space exploration, usually associated with the Cold War. Most studies sponsored by NASA

have focused on the former category, while academic

scholars have studied the latter.

NASA has sponsored a series of books that cover

various aspects of its space program, including general studies of the agency's history and a number

of histories on the management and technology of both

its many space projects and the various space centers that fall under NASA's control. These works concentrate on the organizational steps needed to accomplish the nation's space goals in the 1960s.

Their authors do not analyze the motivations for space exploration or the interaction between NASA, the

8 government, and the general public, focusing instead on the iutemal dynamics of the space program.

Histories of NASA's many facilities also focus on the process and managerial skills necessary for the United

States to have a successful space program, paying close attention to NASA's internal structure. The authors assume that readers already know why space exploration was occurring and concentrate instead on the role played by each individual research center.?

There are few academic studies of the American space program that are not agency-sponsored. The best comprehensive historical study of the space program is

Walter A. McDougall's ...the Heavens and the Earth: A

Political History of the Space Ace. McDougall offers an excellent comparative analysis of American and

Soviet political decision-making that led to the space race. By tracing the roots of modern space exploration back to the men who experimented with primitive rockets in the early twentieth century, he shows that the Cold War affected the timing of the

American space program but did not provide the single cause. McDougall's analysis of the influence of political systems on the direction of space policy is equally interesting. The totalitarian government of the Soviet Union had different concerns than the democratic American system. Other academic studies have also focused on Cold War motivations for space exploration. In light of revisionist interpretations of the Cold War, Elip Bulkeley and Dale Carter blame the escalation of space programs of the 1950s on erroneous American assumptions of Soviet intentions.®

Howard E. McCurdy addresses some connections between political and cultural aspects of the space program in Space and the American Imagination.

McCurdy contrasts what he describes as the romantic vision of space exploration with the reality of what actually occurred. In a chapter on frontier imagery and space, he argues that the reality of space exploration was much different from the frontier myth.

But he does not fully explain why the frontier has remained such a powerful idea, and he assumes that the use of frontier imagery by NASA officials and others has always been a conscious decision. I believe that the concept of a frontier heritage was deeply ingrained in most Americans and that the use of

10 frontier language was as much unconscious as it was

intentional.®

My study traces the development of the frontier myth as it applied to the American space program.

Americans relied on their perceptions of centuries of

frontier tradition to explain the importance of space exploration. The Cold War may explain the timing of

the national space program but cannot fully explain

Americans' fascination with space. By the late 1950s and 1960s, both intellectual and popular frontier myths had fully developed. Americans were exposed to

these concepts as they went to school and through

literature, television, and movies. Having accepted

the premise of Turner's thesis, most Americans believed that the space frontier would rejuvenate the nation, economically, politically, and socially.

It is unsurprising in this climate that NASA, the presidents. Congress, and popular sources such as the media all utilized frontier language in justifications of the space program. In fact, it would have been more astonishing if they had not done so. With

Americans ' widespread use of frontier rhetoric to serve as its basis, this work addresses why the

11 frontier analogy was so powerful in describing and justifying space exploration, and why its influence seemed to decline with time. It also analyzes the extent to which the use of frontier imagery by these various groups was a conscious decision, rather than an unintentional acceptance of American cultural assumptions. I examine the interaction between various groups in the 1950s and 1960s, from NASA,

Congress, and the Presidents, to the media, museums, and the general public. While I agree that American perceptions of the frontier past are often inaccurate, sometimes what people believe to be true is as important as the truth itself. After all, it is those beliefs that influence the way in which Americans viewed their present and future— particularly with regard to space exploration.

The first chapter covers the development of both the intellectual and popular visions of the American frontier experience from the late nineteenth century to the era of space exploration. Even as more historians were challenging Turner's interpretation of

Western history, the mythology of the frontier was taking root in most Americans ' minds. Thus the

12 context was set for the connection between the space programs of the 1960s and the nation’s history as recognized by most of its citizens. Subsequent chapters focus on the use of frontier rhetoric in space discussions on the part of NASA, presidential administrations, and Congress, and interactions between popular culture and public discourses. Not only do these chapters define the various ways in which space exploration was connected to the frontier, they also look at the interactions among these groups.

Finally, I address the decreased power of the frontier myth, in spite of its continued usage throughout discussions of both real and imaginary space travel.

13 l.On Americans and identity, see John R. Gillis, "Memory and Identity: The History of a Relationship," in Commemorations: The Politics of National Identity, John R. Gillis, ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 3-24; David Lowenthal, "Identity, Heritage, and History," in Commemorations. 41-57; David Campbell, Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity. Revised ed. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1992 and 1998); John Bodnar, Remaking America: Public Memory, Commemoration, and Patriotism in the Twentieth Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992; Michael Kammen, Mvstic Chords of Memory: The Transformation of Tradition in American Culture (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1991).

2.Wilbur R. Jacobs, "Foreword," in Frederick Jackson Turner, The Frontier in American History (Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press, 1920, 1986), p. xxii.

3.Frederick Jackson Turner, "The Problem of the West," Atlantic Monthly (Sept. 1896), reprinted in Turner, The Frontier in American History, p. 219; Turner, "Contributions of the West to American Democracy," Atlantic Monthly (Jan. 1903), reprinted in Turner, The Frontier in American History, p. 246; Turner, "Social Forces in American History," presidential address to the American Historical Association, The American Historical Review (Jan. 1911), reprinted in Turner, The Frontier in American History, p. 315.

4.Ray Allen Billington, America's Frontier Heritage (Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, 1963, 1974), p. 26. See also Allan G. Bogue, Thomas D. Phillips, and James E. Wright, eds., The West of the American People (Ithaca, II: F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc., 1970), xiii.

5.Patricia Nelson Limerick, The Legacy of Conquest: The Unbroken Past of the American West (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987), p. 19.

14 6.Robert G. Atheam, The Mythic West in Twentieth-Centurv America (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1986), p. 10, 178, 183; Richard Slotkin, Gunfiahter Nation: The Mvth of the Frontier in Twentieth-Centurv America. (New York: HarperPerennial, 1992). Slotkin further develops the idea of frontier mythology in The Fatal Environment: The Mvth of the Frontier in the Aae of Industrialization, 1800-1890 (New York: HarperPerennial, 1985) and Regeneration Through Violence: The Mythology of the American Frontier, 1600—1860 (New York: HarperPerennial, 1973). See also William Cronon, George Miles, and Jay Gitlin, "Becoming West: Toward a New Meaning for Western History," in Cronon, Miles, and Gitlin, eds.. Under an Open Skv: Rethinking America's Western Past (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1992), p. 5; Mark Busby, David Mogen, and Paul Bryant, "Introduction: Frontier Writing as a 'Great Tradition' of American Literature," in Mogen, Busby, and Bryant, eds., The Frontier Experience and the American Dream: Essavs on American Literature (College Station, TX: Texas A & M University Press, 1989), 4, 5; David Mogen, "The Frontier Archetype and the Myth of America: Patterns That Shape the American Dream," in The Frontier Experience and the American Dream, 28.

7.General histories of NASA include Frank W. Anderson, Jr., Orders of Magnitude: A History of NACA and NASA. 1915-1980 (NASA SP-4403) (Washington, D.C.: NASA, 1981); Roger E. Bilstein, Orders of Magnitude: A History of NACA and NASA, 1915-1990 (NASA SP-4406) (Washington, D.C.: NASA, 1989); Roger D. Launius, NASA: A History of The U.S. Civil Space Program (Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company, 1994). Project Histories include Robert L. Rosholt, An Administrative History of NASA, 1958-1963 (NASA SP-4101) (Washington, D.C.: NASA, 1966); Arnold S. Levine, Managing NASA in the Apollo Era (NASA SP- 4102) (Washington, D.C.: NASA, 1982); Sylvia D. Fries, NASA Engineers and the Age of Apollo (NASA SP-4104) (Washington, D.C.: NASA, 1992); Howard E. McCurdy, Inside NASA: High Technology and Organizational Change in the U.S. Space Program (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993). Histories of NASA facilities include Alfred

15 Rosenthal, Venture into Space: Earlv Years of Goddard Space Flight Center (NASA SP-4301) (Washington, DC: NASA, 1985); Elizabeth A. Muenger, Searching the Horizon: A History of Ames Research CAntmr. 1940-1976 (NASA SP-4304) (Washington, DC: NASA, 1985); Henry C. Dethloff, "Suddenly Tomorrow Came": A History of the Johnson Space Center, I957r 1990 (NASA SP-4307) (Washington, DC: NASA, 1993) ; James R. Hansen, Spaceflight Revolution: NASA Langley Research Center From Sputnik to ApoIIq (NASA SP-4308) (Washington, DC: NASA, 1995); Edwin P. Hartman, Adventures in Research: A History of Ames Research Center, 1940-1965 (NASA SP-4302) (Washington, DC: NASA, 1970); Richard P. Hallion, Qn the Frontier: Flight Research at Drvden, 1946-19.8% (NASA SP-4303) (Washington, DC: NASA, 1984); James R. Hansen, Engineer in Charge: A History of the Langley Aeronautical Laboratory, 1917-1958 (NASA SP- 4305) (Washington, DC: NASA, 1987); Virginia P. Dawson, Engines and Innovation: Lewis Laboratory and American Propulsion Technology (NASA SP-4306) (Washington, DC: NASA, 1991). The two studies of the early civilian space programs are Loyd S. Swenson, Jr., James M. Grimwood, and Charles C. Alexander, This New Ocean: A History of Project Mercury (NASA SP-4201) (Washington, D.C.: NASA, 1966) ; Barton C. Hacker and James Grimwood, Qn Shoulders of Titans: A History of Project Gemini (NASA SP-4203) (Washington, D.C.: NASA, 1977). Books covering the Apollo program include Charles D. Benson and William Bamaby Faherty, Moonport : A History of Apollo Launch Facilities and Operations (NASA SP-4204) (Washington, D.C.: NASA, 1978); Courtney G. Brooks, James M. Grimwood, and Loyd S. Swenson, Jr., Chariots for Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft (NASA SP-4205) (Washington, D.C.: NASA, 1979); Roger E. Bilstein, Stages to Saturn: A Technological History of the Aoollo/Saturn Launch Vehicles (NASA SP-4206) (Washington, D.C. : NASA, 1980); W. David Compton, Where No Man Has Gone Before: A History of Apollo Lunar Exploration Missions (NASA SP-4214) (Washington, D.C.: NASA, 1989). Other project histories of interest include Homer E. Newell, Bevond the Atmosphere: Early Years of Space Science (NASA SP-4211) (Washington, DC: NASA, 1984); Ezell and Ezell, On Mars: Exploration

16 of the Red Planet. 1958-1978 {NASA SP-4212) (Washington, DC: NASA, 1984) .

8.Walter A. McDougall, — the Heavens and the Earth: A Political History of the Space Aae (New York; Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1985); John M. Logsdon, The Decision to Go to the Moon: Project Apollo and the National Interest (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1970); Rip Bulkeley, The Sputniks Crisis and Earlv United States Space__Policy;_A Critique _o£ the Historiography of Space (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1991); Dale Carter, The Final Frontier: The Rise and Fall of the American Rocket State (New York: Verso, New Left Books, 1988). See also William B. Breuer, Race to the Moon: America's Duel with the Soviets (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1993); Martin J. Collins and Sylvia D. Fries, eds.. Perspectives of American Space Ffistorv and Policy (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1991).

9.Howard E. McCurdy, Space and the American Imagination (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1997). William Atwill has also done a more cultural study, looking at the use of language from a postmodern perspective, but does not really address frontier rhetoric. See William D. Atwill, Fire and Power: The American Space Program as Postmodern Narrative (Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press, 1994) .

17 CHAPTER 1

THE FRONTIER MYTH TAKES ROOT: THE EVOLUTION OF THE

INTELLECTUAL AND POPULAR FRONTIERS

NASA and others in American society did not suddenly invent the concept of the frontier in the

1950s and 1960s to justify space exploration. Their use of frontier imagery to describe the space program was generally unintentional and had roots that went back into the preceding century, if not further. Both popular and intellectual interpretations of the frontier myth evolved slowly over decades and even centuries, reflecting the influence of literature, popular culture, and historical events. Since the nation's frontier identity developed in such a slow manner, most Americans had come to believe in the frontier myth without question— it had taken root in their subconsciousness. Frontier imagery had also been connected with other historical events, and its

18 use in discussions of space exploration was only its most recent incarnation. Without this background, the nation ' s frontier past would not have had the power to grip so many Americans during the era of space exploration.

From Frontiersman to Cowbov: The Frontier Mvth to 1890

There were few distinctions between popular and intellectual interpretations of the frontier in the

United States prior to the late nineteenth century.

Early frontier accounts utilized similar key images of exploration and expansion, and they all generally incorporated the common theme of individuals pitting themselves against the wilderness. While early definitions of the frontier were grounded in the concept of the line of settlement or the point at which civilization ended and wilderness began, the spirit of the frontier experience evolved quickly to become much more than just a geographical boundary.

A special type of person, known first as a frontiersman and later also as a pioneer, came to symbolize the larger significance of the frontier.

19 And this deeper meaning had a powerful effect on both

Americans who chose to travel westward and on those who remained at home in the East. Frederick Jackson

Turner's frontier thesis thus had roots extending far back into the preceding century.

Even before the beginnings of a frontier tradition in the United States, early settlers set the tone for the frontier myth. Not satisfied with the boundaries of the colony of Jamestown, planters pushed westward from the coast in a search for more land. John

Winthrop, leader of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, created the foundation for the nineteenth-century concept of Manifest Destiny. Explaining the motivation for establishing the Puritan colony,

Winthrop declared that "we shall be as a city on a hill, [and] the eyes of all people are upon us." This idea of Americans being chosen by God to control the

North American continent was present in American political discourse in the centuries that followed

Winthrop's declaration. Its popularity reached its peak during the nineteenth century. ^

American writers have had a long tradition of including frontier themes in their work. Scholars who

20 study American literature have traced the tradition of both fiction and nonfiction frontier themes back at least to the early nineteenth century. James Fenimore

Cooper was one of the earliest frontier novelists, creating in his Leatherstocking Tales both a mental picture of the wilderness and of the people who chose to be part of it. The men who explored and inhabited the wilderness, known as explorers, woodsmen, or most commonly as frontiersmen, were adopted as official representatives of the American spirit in the first half of the nineteenth century and described as

"independent, self-made, democratic, and heroic."

Americans viewed these characteristics as being part of themselves, both on an individual and national level. This tradition became the foundation for both the intellectual and popular frontier myths.^

Both fictitious and more realistic narratives of the experiences of famous American frontiersmen, such as Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett, and Kit Carson, also contributed to Americans ' understanding of the mythological nature of westward expansion.

Contemporary travel descriptions added to the impact of these biographical accounts. The authors of many

21 travel publications intended to encourage Americans to migrate westward into territory that the United States

had not previously occupied, but even the people who

read these works and chose not to move still developed

mythological perceptions of the West. Although the

majority of Americans decided not to travel west, they

could live vicariously through these writings. Later,

the frontiersmen portrayed in these accounts were

joined within the frontier myth by other human symbols

of the American West, such as pioneers, Indian

fighters, gunf ighters, and cowboys, who traced their

roots back to those early frontier adventurers. These

characters became the main symbols of the popular view

of the frontier. Turner also acknowledged the

importance of these early frontiersmen and those who

followed them in the creation of the frontier nation,

as well as the importance of the territory gained

through diplomacy and war in the nineteenth century. ^

Territorial expansion across the continent in the

first half of the nineteenth century also contributed

to Americans' convictions about the frontier.

Applying the concept of Manifest Destiny to United

States foreign policy beginning in the 1840s, many

22 Americans became convinced that their nation's

expansion westward was both divine and unique. They

believed that God had chosen the United States to

dominate the continent. Because the nation was

exceptional, it could act as an example of democratic values for the rest of the world, similar to

Winthrop*s "City on a Hill." The frontier therefore became a symbol of American exceptionalism through its connection with Manifest Destiny. Americans

incorporated many aspects of Manifest Destiny into their assumptions about the frontier in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

Manifest Destiny defined the American character in a way that complemented Turner's thesis in the 1890s.

Many Americans assumed in the 1890s and the decades that followed, just as John L. O'Sullivan had in 1839, that westward expansion made the United States

"destined to be the great nation of futurity." In between O'Sullivan's articulation of the concept of

Manifest Destiny in 1839 and Turner's presentation of his thesis in 1893, the United States government added new territory to the Union through the Mexican War and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848), permanently

23 set the southern boundary of the nation with the

Gadsden Purchase in 1853, purchased Alaska in 1867, connected the East and West with the completion of the first transcontinental railroad in 1869, and ultimately opened the final continental territory,

Oklahoma, to white settlement in 1889. These territorial additions all worked to strengthen

Americans ' beliefs about the importance of the frontier in their history.*

Prior to the 1890s, the cowboy was also becoming a significant symbol of the American West, as frontiersmen and pioneers were disappearing from the landscape. Since cattle ranching had developed into a major industry in the West in the late 1800s, someone new was needed to personify the individualistic American spirit of the West. The cowboy was a hero that most Americans not only admired but also desired to emulate. Unlike many other heroes, whose glory faded over time, the cowboy's symbolism remained powerful for generations. Like other frontier symbols, the image of the cowboy was reinforced by literature, the movies, television, and other media.®

24 As technological improvements made publishing much less expensive in the late 1800s, millions of

Americans could experience the frontier vicariously through dime novels. While not every dime novel focused on a frontier theme, more than fifty percent of these inexpensive books had a Western setting.

Dime novels thus became the main purveyor of the popular frontier myth in the late nineteenth century, both capitalizing on and contributing to the success of Buffalo Bill Cody's Wild West Show. In fact, one reason why Cody became nationally famous was because he was featured in dime novels beginning in 1871.

Richard Slotkin claims that "Buffalo Bill was the protagonist of more dime novels than any other character, real or fictional, with the possible exception of Jesse James."® Dime novels based on frontier themes were the predecessors of the western novels of the twentieth century, written by prominent authors such as Zane Grey and Louis L'Amour.^

Art was another medium that helped to perpetuate the frontier myth in American society. A number of artists focused on Western images in their work at the turn of the century, showing scenes of explorers,

25 cowboys, and Native Americans in both paintings and

sculptures. Frederic Remington and Charles Russell were foremost among these Western artists. Russell was concerned with what he perceived to be the ending

of the frontier by the late nineteenth century. The

two men also contributed to literary images of the

West by illustrating an edition of Owen Wister's novel

The Virginian as well. While the audience for art was

considerably smaller than that for published works

such as dime novels, artists did have an impact on the

American imagination by allowing people to visualize

the West.®

By the late 1800s, Christopher Columbus had also been incorporated into discussions of American

expansion. Americans adopted Columbus as part of

their historical tradition, using him to represent what was unique about the young nation. With the

United States having such a short national history,

Columbus provided legitimacy. As early as the

Revolutionary War era, Americans had referred to the

United States as "Columbia," and in the nineteenth

century some legislators pushed to have the country's official name changed. Americans believed that

2 6 Columbus had established a tradition of exploration that the United States would continue by moving westward across the continent. By the 1890s, with the

Columbian Exposition in Chicago and the commemoration of the four hundredth anniversary of his voyage to the

New World, Columbus had become an American symbol.

The twentieth century saw the consolidation of this process, with Columbus becoming a part of American national identity.®

The Frontier's Growing Significance: 18 90-1930

Turner's frontier thesis would have had neither meaning nor impact without the framework of the events and writings of the previous century. His audience clearly recognized the context of his intellectual theories and held the same assumptions about the nation's frontier experiences as he did. As historian

Richard White has observed, "Turner did not have to tell Americans about the frontier; ... all [he] had to do was to tell Americans about the significance of this familiar frontier." Although enormous areas of the country were still unsettled by white Americans at

27 the end of the century, most people viewed the opening

of Oklahoma Territory to settlement and the census of

18 90 as the end of the frontier era in the United

States. Once that era was gone, Americans placed more value on it, with a tendency to look yearningly at the

past as the time when the nation was truly great. The

idea of the nation's frontier heritage was gaining more and more consequence with time.^°

The 1890s witnessed the consolidation of both the popular and the intellectual explanations of the

frontier's impact on American life. In 18 93, the year

that Turner gave his now famous address, the World's

Fair opened in Chicago, Illinois. The theme of the

Chicago World's Fair was the Columbian Exposition, in

celebration of the four hundredth anniversary of

Christopher Columbus's discovery of the New World.

The United States Congress declared that the anniversary would be celebrated "by an exhibition of the resources of the United States of America, their development, and of the progress of civilization in the New World.

Although exposition planners did not specifically use the word "frontier" in their descriptions of

28 exhibits, there was a heavy emphasis on westward expansion, along with the implication that even recent immigrants to the United States could feel pride in the nation's history and progress. Exhibits specifically related to the West included one on

Native Americans and their process of civilization and a second on the history of the North American continent since its discovery by Columbus. The

Columbian Exposition contributed to both popular and intellectual versions of the frontier past.

An example of the evolving popular image of the

West was located near the Columbian Exposition. Only a short walk from the grounds of the World's Fair,

Buffalo Bill Cody set up his popular travelling show,

Buffalo Bill's Wild West and Congress of Rough Riders of the World. Although Cody's show was not an official part of the exposition, visitors to the

World's Fair were certainly exposed to advertising for the performance, and many people attended both.

Buffalo Bill fed the general public's nostalgic desire to learn more about the frontier past and undoubtedly contributed to popular images of the West, just as the

29 Columbian Exposition celebrated and developed the myth

of a more distant exploratory past.

Cody created the Wild West mainly as a form of

entertainment for his audiences, but he also touted

the educational value of the show. Performers acted

out historical events in order to demonstrate American

expansion westward in a positive light, with Native

Americans normally representing the enemy. Audiences

left the production feeling much more knowledgeable

about the frontier West even though most events were

portrayed in a biased manner. In the process, some

stereotypical images of explorers were ingrained in many Americans' minds, such as frontiersmen and

scouts, cowboys and Indians, as were the adventures to

be experienced if one went West.

Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show has had as long-term

and powerful an impact on American society as Turner's

frontier thesis, although the linkages are not as

obvious. Most Americans would not necessarily have

credited Cody with molding their perceptions of the

frontier experience, even though he was important in helping to create the popular interpretation of the

frontier past. Even as later generations of

30 historians rejected altogether this popular version of history, it still had its advocates and informed

Americans' understanding of their collective past. A wide variety of sources echoed Cody's themes throughout the twentieth century, including short stories and novels, movies, art, and eventually advertising and the media. The majority of Americans in the twentieth century therefore were exposed to, and usually convinced by, the many sources throughout society that informed them about the frontier in all of its mythological glory.

In the context of both the Columbian Exposition's celebration of exploration and discovery and Buffalo

Bill's theatrical depiction of frontier adventure.

Turner articulated a more intellectual conception of the frontier. Turner also came to Chicago in 1893, although not as a tourist visiting either the

Columbian Exposition or Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show.

Turner spoke to the annual meeting of the American

Historical Association that year, and the topic of his speech was "The Significance of the Frontier in

American History." It was Turner's address that influenced many Americans, including both historical

31 scholars and ordinary citizens, to fully identify the nation's past and current greatness with frontier expansion. But both Turner's intellectual vision of the frontier past and Buffalo Bill's more popular version worked together to create a mythological frontier history that was very powerful. The intellectual and popular interpretations of the frontier began to interact with each other in the late

1800s, while still maintaining some differences in their views of what the frontier meant.

Turner's ideas were very powerful, even though he admitted that his frontier thesis was just a theory.

He never argued that it was the sole explanation for

American history; it would be his followers who would later make those claims and present Turner as a greater target for his critics. Turner focused on free land as the catalyst for the creation of a singular American identity, which included

"individualism, economic equality, freedom to rise,

[and] democracy." He allowed Americans to believe that they had a unique place in the world, a concept that Manifest Destiny had already introduced to preceding generations.

32 Turner had a major impact on his peers within the historical profession. His ideas about the importance of the frontier allowed historians of the United

States to claim that Americans were unique in their historical upbringing. This argument gave legitimacy to the first generation of professional historians in the United States, who were trying to create their own identity as scholars separate from that of European historians. Although Turner himself did not advocate the frontier thesis as the only explanation of the nation's past, other historians of both his generation and those that followed often treated his ideas as absolute truth. Turner's students dominated scholarly discourse about the nation's past for decades after his 1893 address in Chicago.^®

Turner's influence was not limited to intellectuals. Some American policymakers also took notice of his ideas, including Presidents Theodore

Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Even before he had read

Turner's scholarship, Roosevelt had taken an interest in the American West. He had travelled westward on hunting parties on several occasions and had invested in a cattle ranch. Roosevelt also had a fascination

33 with the historical frontier and began publishing his four-volume study. The Winning of the West, in 1889.

Turner and Roosevelt did not always agree in their interpretations of westward expansion; in fact,

Roosevelt's western history often came closer to

Cody's version than Turner's. His descriptions of the process of westward expansion were usually violent and dramatic. Roosevelt had read James Fenimore Cooper's

Leatherstocking Tales, and those fictitious accounts and frontier themes had strongly influenced his view of the American West. Unlike Turner, who accentuated the role of groups of people, Roosevelt preferred to concentrate on the part of individuals. In spite of their differences, both Turner and Roosevelt hoped that through the study of the frontier past, they could protect traditional republican beliefs and practices for Americans in a dramatically changing world.

Differences in their historical interpretations did not keep Roosevelt and Turner from reading each other's work and periodically discussing their ideas through correspondence. In particular, Roosevelt credited Turner's frontier thesis with influencing the

34 third volume of his The Winning of the West, published in 1895. Like many other Americans at the turn of the centuryy Roosevelt's perceptions of the nation's expansion westward influenced the way in which he contemplated American foreign policy once he was president, particularly with regard to U.S. actions toward the nations of Latin America. He used justifications based on the frontier myth and Manifest

Destiny to explain why the United States should be engaged in Latin America, while at the same time arguing that the Europeans should remain uninvolved because of the Monroe Doctrine.^®

Turner's arguments influenced Woodrow Wilson as well. Wilson and Turner had attended graduate school together at Johns Hopkins University and knew each other well. In fact, Wilson had acted as a sounding board for Turner's frontier thesis before Turner addressed the American Historical Association in 1893.

Once again, it was the idea of the unique qualities of the American character, as molded by the frontier, that seemed to have the greatest impact on Wilson ' s actions as president. Wilson, more than Roosevelt, seemed to embrace Turner's theories, but both Wilson

35 and Roosevelt echoed Turner's longings for a frontier

that no longer existed. All three men worried about

the effect that the closing of the frontier would have

on the nation.“

Turner's influence was not limited to national political leaders such as Roosevelt and Wilson.

Progressives at the local and state levels were also affected by the logic of the frontier thesis,

convinced that with the declared ending of the

frontier new efforts must be made to ensure that rapid

societal and economic changes would not threaten

American democracy. With the advent of

industrialization, the growth of cities, and the millions of new immigrants journeying to the United

States from Southern and Eastern Europe, Progressives were convinced that they must protect the nation's values and ideals. Because they assumed that the closing of the West meant the end of an important

safety valve for societal pressures. Progressives instituted reforms at the local, state, and national levels to decrease conflict within society and to

"Americanize" these new immigrants. Anxiety about what the end of the frontier meant to the nation

36 influenced several areas in American politics, such as immigration restrictions, conservation of natural resources, and the nation's attempts to obtain new territories.

Journalists joined political leaders in connecting the frontier thesis to Progressivism at the turn of the century. Among them were Herbert Croly and Walter

Weyl, the founders of the New Republic. In particular, Croly utilized Turner's ideas to justify

Progressive reforms in the early 1900s. He and many other Progressives argued that without the frontier to act as a natural protector of American values, the federal government must be strengthened to step in and take over that role. Their articulation of these views in major national and local publications helped their ideas to be spread rapidly.

In the first few decades after 1890, there were few scholars, writers, or politicians who did not accept the validity of Turner's thesis, thus making the historical frontier a basic assumption behind their words and actions. Those few historians who did reject Turner, finding exceptions to his assertions in the Pacific Northwest and Canada, were largely ignored

37 by the main body of scholars and journalists.^^ Most

Intellectuals from other fields outside of history, such as the social sciences. Incorporated Turner's theories about the frontier Into their own work.

Geographer Ellen Churchill Semple echoed Turner's

Ideas, reasoning that "the democratic spirit of the ever youthful frontier fostered the spirit of democracy and youth In the whole nation." This argument was very popular among scholars at the turn of the century. In spite of a few naysayers.^^

The power of the popular frontier myth also continued to grow In the following decades. Dime novels' popularity continued Into the twentieth century. Gradually western novels surpassed more sensational dime novel accounts such as those about

Buffalo Bill. This new type of fiction, generally referred to as "pulp fiction, " was also Inexpensive and popular with mass audiences. The purpose of

Western pulp fiction, according to Richard Slotkln, was to "address . .. the problem of adapting the traditional concept of democratic heroism, based on the Myth of the Frontier, to a post-Frontler

America.Zane Grey became the best known of Western

38 authors in the early 1900s. The new genre of science fiction soon joined Westerns in this category. Both early Westerns and early science fiction tended to follow similar formulas, centered around frontier exploration and expansion.

A new type of entertainment repeated the themes of pulp fiction in the early twentieth century. Silent movies became popular starting in 1903, and the

Western was one of the main story themes. These new

Western movies were very popular, and they perpetuated many of the popular frontier myths introduced by dime novels and Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show. Movie

Westerns also utilized the same frontier symbols, such as pioneers, cowboys, and Indians, as novels had used in the past. Once Hollywood introduced sound to moving pictures in the late 1920s, studios produced

Westerns on a grand scale.

Competing Frontier Visions: From the 1930s to the

1960s

While Turner and his many followers in the period from 1890 to 1920 considered the nation's frontier

39 heritage as a positive force, nourishing American values as they developed and strengthened over time, some scholars by the 1920s and 1930s viewed the impact of the frontier in a more negative light. A number of historians argued that other influences were more important than the frontier in explaining the course of American history. They focused on factors such as the role of economics, immigration, psychology, and race. At the same time that these scholars were challenging the frontier thesis, the majority within the profession still mostly agreed with Turner's views. Dartmouth professor Robert E. Reigel enthusiastically endorsed Turner's hypothesis in his textbook on the American West, published in 1930.

Others also supported Turner's views, even after his death in 1931, yet they were more cautious in their validation and argued that other factors beyond the frontier must be included in explaining the American experience. As a new generation of historians came of age, less emotionally attached to the concept of the frontier and too young to remember the "closing of the frontier," Turner's ideas lost some of their prominence within the historical community.^®

40 It was during the 1920s and 1930s that the growing

divergence between scholarly and more popular

interpretations of the nation's past became evident.

Just as Progressives had used the frontier thesis to

legitimize their reforms in the late 1800s and early

1900s, New Deal reformers adopted Turnerian

justifications for their policies to ameliorate the

Great Depression in the 1930s. Franklin D.

Roosevelt's intellectual advisors applied the same

rationale as Progressive leaders who had argued that

a closed frontier meant a need for more government

involvement in the economy. Many leading American

economists also accepted the frontier thesis as the

basis for economic policies in the thirties

Although political leaders utilized the frontier

thesis as justification for their New Deal policies, most Americans seemed to lose some of their

fascination with the frontier past, at least for a few

years. They were much too busy with the harsh

realities of survival during the Great Depression, and

Turner's concerns about the end of the frontier seemed valid. Many felt that the Great Depression was

41 evidence of the negative effects of the industrial era after the closing of the frontier.

Popular images of the frontier still remained in the many books and movies produced during the 1930s, but these sources often portrayed the frontier in a less enthusiastic light than during the preceding decades. The types of Hollywood Westerns made by major studios varied as well from what had been filmed prior to the Great Depression. While the number of B-

Westerns remained high, most film makers stopped producing the feature-length Westerns that had been so popular before the depression years. Only in the late

1930s did Hollywood again produce grand Western sagas.

Beginning in 1938, Hollywood studios again produced feature-length Westerns in larger numbers.

While throughout most of the depression years the nation was pessimistic about its past, one historian has concluded that the hope promised by the New Deal

"suggested that American history could once again be read as a kind of 'success story,' rather than... a tale of inevitable corruption and decay." Frontier themes could be used to pull the nation back together

42 once again in an era in which. Americans were concerned about war in Europe and fascist threats at home. New

Westerns sought to give Americans a better understanding of their nation's exceptionalism and its place in history. During the war years Hollywood put most Westerns on hold as it focused on war movies, but after the war ended, the Western returned to prominence.

During World War II, use of the word "frontier" was extended in a new direction— science. President

Franklin D. Roosevelt felt that science could provide the new safety valve for the United States in the postwar era, ensuring that after the war was over there would not be a return to the conditions of the

Great Depression. Vannevar Bush, director of the

Wartime Office of Scientific Research and Development, echoed this theme in 1945 in a report titled Science—

The Endless Frontier. Bush argued that the United

States government should invest more money in scientific research. This report and the assumptions behind it encouraged American leaders in the following decades to connect space exploration and the frontier as well.^^

43 After World War II, the dichotomy between historical perspectives of the general public and political leaders and the arguments made by the majority of historians became even more apparent.

While most scholars still supported the Turner thesis prior to the 1940s, even if in a more limited fashion, in the decades that followed the war the number of

Turner's disciples continued to dwindle. The one exception to this trend was historian Ray Allen

Billington, who continued to support Turner's thesis even when other scholars modified their views. Rather than responding to the criticisms of this new generation, Billington chose to ignore them and concentrate instead on publishing works that elaborated on the Frontier Thesis.

Even most historians who believed that the frontier experience had been important in the formation of the United States modified their arguments after World War II. In the new internationalist climate of the postwar era, some frontier historians contradicted part of Turner's argument by stating that frontier had not played a unique role in American history; other nations had

44 also explored frontiers. Walter Prescott Webb, a

leading scholar of this new school of historiography, argued against Turner in The Great Frontier in 1951.

Webb did not dispute the frontier's importance in

American history; instead, he criticized both Turner and historians who came after him for failing to recognize that other nations experienced a frontier legacy similar to that of the United States. Webb's arguments were a major attack on the concept of

American exceptionalism.^^

Soon even more historians of the American West made departures from Turner's thesis. As the editors of Under a Western Sky: Rethinking America's Western

Past have observed, "by the 1960s traditional frontier historiography struck many [scholars] as racist, sexist, and imperialist in its depiction of western settlement. These scholars argued that Turner's thesis was more significant because of those groups who were left out of the analysis of the nation's history than for those who were included. But at the same time, the idea of the importance of America's frontier past was becoming even more rooted in the public consciousness, and that concept had a much

45 greater impact on what most Americans believed about

the nation's past than contemporary scholarly

research. As one recent scholar of the American West

has observed, while "historians explored conflict,

unintended consequences, and complexities in

history[,] presidents continued to see only freedom,

opportunity, abundance, and success." Most Americans

seemed to follow their presidents' example.^®

Although most scholars' increasingly rejected

Turner's thesis after World War II, the popular image

of the frontier continued to grow. Historians primarily reached other historians with their

scholarship and had little impact on popular views.

Instead, sources such as novels, movies, and the new medium of television continued to inform most

Americans' beliefs about their collective past. The

frontier myth remained a major theme in these forms of popular entertainment.

The new genre of science fiction grew in popularity after World War II. The frontier was a common theme of both "space-opera Westerns" and more serious science fiction. Writers, according to David

Mogen, used frontier imagery "to re invigorate our

46 national purposey to enlist the energies of our frontier heritage to conquer the new wilderness of outer space that technology has opened to us. "

Science fiction authors have often utilized Turnerian justifications for space travel and exploration, arguing that a "new frontier" could solve problems that the world faced from industrialization and overpopulation. According to these authors, space could have the same influence on the national character as the American West had in preceding centuries.^®

Just as Western fiction and science fiction remained popular in the years following World War II,

Westerns also remained a common form for movies and radio programs. By the early 1950s, Americans "were reading at least eighteen million Westerns yearly, . . . listening to radio programs featuring the Lone Ranger,

Gene Autry, and Roy Rogers [, and] tens of millions went to see the myth reflected in Western films.

Not only was Hollywood making more Westerns, but the quality of these movies improved as they attracted better producers, directors, and actors. As the Cold

War developed between the United States and the Soviet

47 Union, Westerns reaffirmed what was good about the

American character. Contemporary sociologists and

psychologists studied the connections between Western

films and current events, arguing that Westerns

comforted Americans who were worried about the

uncertain outcome of the Cold War. After all, the

good guys always triumphed by the conclusion of the

story.

Television Westerns reached even larger audiences

beginning in the mid 1950s. Networks usually drew

early television Westerns from popular movies. In

only a few years. Westerns were more popular on

television than through any other medium, making up

almost one quarter of the prime time shows in 1959.

Three television shows, all modeled after successful

movies, began this dominance: Cheyenne(1955-63),

Gunsmoke (1955-75) . and The Life and Legend of Wvatt

Earp(1955-61). Numerous other shows followed these

three programs in the next twenty years, including

Bonanza (1969-73), The Lone Ranger (1959-67), Rawhide

(1959-66), The Virginian (1962-71), and Wild, Wild

West (1965-70) . By the end of the 1950s, Westerns made up eight of the top ten shows on television.

48 Television had created a new way to educate massive numbers of Americans about the importance of their frontier heritage, however that past might be interpreted.

In the 1960s, American presidents once again returned to using frontier rhetoric. John F. Kennedy ran for President in 1960 on the slogan "The New

Frontier." He used the word "frontier" to describe

American ventures on all fronts: science, technology, the economy, politics, and even social change. He charged Americans to follow the examples of their pioneer ancestors in tackling the challenges of the second half of the twentieth century. While Kennedy's definition of the frontier was based on Turner's model, he also used popular frontier symbolism to support his points. Kennedy carried this frontier theme from his campaign into his presidency, making it the catch word for all that he tried to accomplish during his term. It is no coincidence that space exploration became synonymous with the frontier during his presidency, since Kennedy instigated the major push for space exploration, with the specific goal of putting Americans on the moon. His success with the

49 frontier metaphor encouraged future presidents to follow his example.

Since the advent of space exploration in the late

1950s, the frontier’s influence on American society has continued. Historians may have rejected the frontier thesis and the popular myth that has accompanied it as a valid explanation of the nation's history, but the majority of Americans have remained unaffected by this historiographical debate. In fact,

Americans have been bombarded by frontier imagery from a seemingly inexhaustible variety of sources.

Companies have used the frontier to sell everything from designer clothing to cigarettes, children's toys to beer.^^ Theme parks also often contain a frontier theme, such as Disneyland in California, where one section is called Front1erland and is devoted to all of the common frontier symbols, such as cowboys, pioneers, and covered wagons. Some Americans relive the past through organizations such as the Westerners'

Club, the Gold Prospector's Association of America, the U.S. Horse Cavalry Association, and the Frontier

Skills Institute. It was only in the early 1990s that many Americans discovered that the historical

50 profession had rejected the frontier as an accurate portrayal of the nation's history, and they reacted with astonishment.^^

ÇQnçj.ygj.Ç)h

By the time that the United States embarked upon the space program in the late 1950s and the 1960s, both the intellectual and popular versions of the frontier were firmly established in the American imagination. Although many historians were already rejecting the validity of the frontier thesis, they did not change most Americans ' assumptions about their collective past. What had informed the popular understanding of the nation's history were two key sources: Turner's frontier thesis, which had dominated the historiography for decades and was still being taught in high school history classes long after it was rejected by academic historians, and popular frontier images presented in literature, art, movies, television shows, and advertising.

NASA administrators, politicians, journalists, and the general public had all been educated, both

51 formally and informally, through exposure to these same sources. It seems plausible that they would have had a common understanding of their frontier heritage and could therefore make the frontier part of the rhetoric of space exploration. NASA administrators often used frontier imagery in describing the space program, believing that their audience would understand what the frontier meant. As one scholar has observed, "On the most literal level, the frontier metaphor expresses a conviction that science and technology can truly make us pioneers again, in the deeps of outer space, on fresh new worlds.

52 Endnotes

1.John Winthrop, "A Model of Christian Charity (1630)," in Winthrop Papers, vol. II, IG23-1630 (Boston: The Massachusetts Historical Society, 1931). See also Ronald Takaki, "The Tempest in the Wilderness: The Racialization of Savagery," in Journal of American History 79 (December 1992): 892- 912; Charles M. Segal and David C. Stineback, Puritans. Indians, and Manifest Destiny (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1977); David Campbell, Writing Security: Dnited States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity. Revised ed. (Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press, 1992, 1998), 107-108.

2.Jules Zanger, "The Frontiersman in Popular Fiction, 1820-60," in The Frontier Re-examined, ed. by John Francis McDermott (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1967), 141. The Leatherstocking Tales include James Fenimore Cooper, The Pioneers; or. The Sources of the Susquehanna (New York: Charles Wiley, 1823); James Fenimore Cooper, The Last of the Mohicans: A Narrative of 1757 (Paris: L. Baudry, 1826); James Fenimore Cooper, The Prairie. A Tale (London: Henry Colburn, 1827); James Fenimore Cooper, The Pathfinder; or. The Inland Sea (Philadelphia: Lea and Blanchard, 1840); James Fenimore Cooper, The Deerslaver; or. The First Warpath (Philadelphia: Lea and Blanchard, 1841).

3.See David Mogen, Mark Busby, and Paul Bryant, eds. The Frontier Experience and the American Dream: Essavs on American Literature (Co1lege Station, TX: Texas A & M University Press, 1989); Edwin Fussell, Frontier: American Literature and the American West (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965); Zanger, "The Frontiersman and Popular Fiction, 1820-1860," in The Frontier Re-examined, ed. by McDermott, 142, 147; James Oliver Robertson, American Myth. American Reality (New York: Hill & Wang, 1980), 158; Frederick Jackson Turner, "The Old West," Proceedings of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin for 1908. as reprinted in Frederick Jackson Turner, The Frontier in American History (Tucson, A Z : The University of Arizona Press, 1920, 1986), 105-106; John Mack Faragher, Daniel Boone:

53 The Life and Legend of an American Pioneer (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1992) .

4.John L. O'Sullivan, editorial. The United States Magazine & Democratic Review 6 (November 1839), 430. Historians' analyses of Manifest Destiny and expansionism include, but are not limited to, Anders Stephanson, Manifest Destiny: American Expansionism and the Empire of Right (New York: Hill and Wang, 1995); Albert K. Weinberg, Manifest Destiny: A Studv of Nationalist Expansionism in American History (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1935); Frederick Merk, Manifest Destiny and Mission in American History: A Reinterpretation (New York: Knopf, 1966); Thomas R. Hietala, Manifest Design: Anxious Aggrandizement in Late Jacksonian America (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1985); Reginald Horsman, Race and Manifest Destinv: The Origins of Racial Anglo-Saxonism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981) ; William H. Goetzmann, When the Eagle Screamed: The Romantic Horizon in American Diplomacy, 1800-1860 (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1966); Sam W. Haynes and Christopher Morris, eds.. Manifest Destinv and Empire: American Antebellum Expansionism (College Station: Texas A & M Press for the University of Texas at Arlington, 1997) .

5.David Mogen, "The Frontier Archetype and the Myth of America: Patterns that Shape the American Dream, " in The Frontier Experience and the American Dream, ed. by Mogen, Busby, and Bryant, 17; Joe B. Frantz, "Cowboy Philosophy: A Cold Spoor," in The Frontier Re-examined, ed. by McDermott, 170. See also Robert G. Athearn, The Mvthic West in Twentieth-Century America (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1986), 178; Robertson, American Myth, American Reality, 6, 160; David M. Wrobel, The End of American Exceptionalism: Frontier Anxiety from the Old West to the New Deal (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1993), 40, 192; Russell Martin, Cowbov: The Enduring Mvth of the Wild West (New York: Stewart, Tabor, & Chang, 1983).

6.Richard W. Etulain, "The Rise of Historiography," in Writing Western History; Essavs

54 on Major Western Historians, ed. by Richard W. Etulain (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1991), 5-6; Richard Slotkin, Gunfiahter Nation: The Mvth of the Frontier in Twentieth- Centurv America (New York: HarperCollins Press, 1992), 73. See also Christine Bold, Selling the Wild West: Popular Western Fiction (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987) .

7.Patricia Nelson Limerick, The Legacy of Conquest: The Unbroken Past of the American West (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987), 19; Wrobel, The End of American Exceptionalism, 91-92; See also Bold, Selling the Wild West.

8.Wrobel, The End of American Exceptionalism, 40; Richard White, "Frederick Jackson Turner and Buffalo Bill," in The Frontier in American Culture, ed. by Grossman, 46-52; Owen Wister, The Virginian (New York: Macmillan, 1911). See also G. Edward White, The Eastern Establishment and the Western Experience: The West of Frederic Remington, Theodore Roosevelt, and Owen Wister (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1968); Slotkin, Gunfighter Nation; Martha A. Sandweiss, "Views and Reviews: Western Art and Western History," in Under a Western Sky: Rethinking America's Western Past, ed. by William Cronon, George Miles, and Jay Gitlin (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1992): 185-202; William H. Goetzmann and William N. Goetzmann, The West of the Imagination (New York: Norton, 1986); William H. Treuttner, "Prelude to Expansion: Repainting the Past," in The West as America: Reinterpreting Images of the Frontier. 1820-1920. ed. William H. Treuttner (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1991), 27-58. Even in the mid 1800s, frontier themes were present in American art. See Vivien Fryd, Art and Empire: The Politics of Ethnicity in the United States Capitol. 1815-1860 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992).

9.Claudia L. Bushman, America Discovers Columbus: How an Italian Explorer Became an American Hero (Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 1992), 46-50, 98-100, 104, 111. See also Frederick E. Roxie, "Discovery America: An Introduction," in

55 Journal of American History 79 (December 1992): 835- 840; Thomas J. Schlereth, "Columbia, Columbus, and Columbianism," in Journal of American History 7 9 (December 1992): 937—968-

10.Richard White, "Frederick Jackson Turner and Buffalo Bill," in The Frontier in American Culture: An Exhibition at the Newberry Library. August 26, 1994-Januarv 1. 1995, ed. by James R. Grossman (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), 12.

11.The Story of Columbus and the World's Columbian Exposition (Cincinnati: W.H. Ferguson Co., 1892), 332.

12.See Reid Badger, The Great American Fair: The World's Columbian Exposition and American Culture (Chicago: N. Hall, 1979); Justus E. Doenecke, "Myths, Machines, and Markets : The Columbian Exposition of 1893," in Journal of Popular Culture 6 (Spring 1973).

13.Richard White, "Frederick Jackson Turner and Buffalo Bill," in The Frontier in American Culture, ed. by Grossman, especially 7-11, 27-29. See also Slotkin, Gunfiahter Mation; Don Russell, The Wild West; or. A History of the Wild West Shows ... (Fort Worth, TX: Amon Carter Museum of Western Art, 1970); Richard W. Etulain, Telling Western Stories: From Buffalo Bill to Larry McCurtev (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1999); Sarah J. Blackstone, Buckskins. Bullets, and Business : A History of Buffalo Bill's Wild West (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1986).

14.Frederick Jackson Turner, "The Significance of the Frontier in American History," in Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1893 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1894), 199-227; Ann Fabian, "History for the Masses : Commercializing the Western Past," in Under an Open Sky, ed. by Cronon, Miles, and Gitlin, 224; Richard W. Etulain, "The Rise of Historiography," in Writing Western History, ed. by Etulain, 6-7. See also Richard White, "When Frederick Jackson Turner

56 and Buffalo Bill Cody Played Chicago in 1893," in Frontier and RegionEssavs in Honor of Martin Ridcre, Robert C. Ritchie and Paul A. Huttons, eds. {Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1997), 201- 212.

15.Frederick Jackson Turner, "Contributions to American Democracy," Atlantic Monthly (January 1903), as reprinted in Frederick Jackson Turner, The Frontier in American History (Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press, 1920, 1947, 1986), 259. See also Kerwin Lee Klein, Frontiers of Historical Imagination: Narrating the European Conquest of Native America, 1890-1990 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997). Scholars who have studied Turner's ideas relating the frontier to the American character include David Mogen, Wilderness Visions: Science Fiction Westerns Volume One (San Bernardino, CA: The Borgo Press, 1982), 17; Harold P. Simonson, The Closed Frontier: Studies in American Literary Tragedy (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1970), 3-4.

16.Fabian, "History for the Masses," in Under an Open Skv. ed. by Cronon, Miles, and Gitlin, 224; Ray Allen Billington, America's Frontier Heritage (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1963), 13-14; Etulain, "The Rise of Historiography," in Writing Western History, ed. by Etulain, 1; William Cronon, George Miles, and Jay Gitlin, "Becoming West: Toward a New Meaning for Western Historians," in Under an Open Sky, ed, by Cronon, Miles, and Gitlin, 3; Richard A. Bartlett, The New Country: A Social History of the American Frontier, 1776-1890 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1974), 446. See also Allen G. Bogue, Frederick Jackson Turner: Strange Roads Going Down (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1998).

17.Slotkin, Gunfighter Nation. 32. See also pp. 29-36, 54-62.

18.Theodore Roosevelt to Frederick Jackson Turner, 10 April 1895, in The Letters of Theodore Roosevelt, Vol. I, ed. by Elting E. Morison (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1951),

57 440. For more information on the interaction between Roosevelt and Turner, see Gerald D. Nash, Creating the West: Historical Interpretations. 1890- 1990 (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1991), 9-13.

19.Nash, Creating the West. 8-9. For Wilson's views of the frontier, see Woodrow Wilson, "The Proper Perspective of American History," Forum 19(July 1895), 544—559; Woodrow Wilson, "The Making of the Nation," Atlantic Monthly 8 0 (July 1897), 1-2; Slotkin, Gunfighter Nation. 60.

20.Wrobel, The End of American Exceptionalism, 22, also 85. See also Nash, Creating the West. 11; Billington, America's Frontier Heritage, 15. Progressives also used Christopher Columbus mythology to "Americanize" immigrants. See David Glassberg, American Historical Pageantry: The Uses of Tradition in the Early Twentieth Century (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1990); Naima Prevots, American Pageantry: A Moment for Art and Democracy (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1990).

21.Nash, Creating the West. 11-13.

22.Early opponents of Turner include Agnes C. Laut, "The Last Trek to the Last Frontier: The American Settler in the Canadian Northwest," Century Magazine 56(May 1909), 99-110; Edmond S. Meany, "The Towns of the Pacific Northwest Were Not Founded on the Fur Trade," American Historical Association, Annual Report. 1910 (Washington, 1911), 165-172.

23.Ellen Churchill Semple, American History and Its Geographic Conditions (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1903), 112. Other scholars who utilized Turner's Frontier Thesis in their work included sociologists Edward A. Ross and Algie Simons. See Edward A. Ross, "The Study of the Present as an Aid to the Interpretation of the Past," Mississippi Valley Historical Association, Proceedings II (1908-1909), 129; Algie Simons, Social Forces in American History (New York: Macmillan, 1911); Billington, America's Frontier

58 Heritage. 14-15. For more discussion of Turner's influence, see Martin Elidge, "The Life of an Idea: The Significance of Frederick Jackson Turner's Frontier Thesis," in Montana: The Magazine of Western History 40(Winter 1991): 2-13.

24.Slotkin, Gunfighter Nation. 194. For more examples of pulp fiction Westerns, see also pp. 195- 211.

25.Slotkin, Gunfighter Nation, 211-217.

26.Slotkin, Gunfighter Nation. 231-237, 241-242, 253-254.

27.For a more detailed discussion of alternative historical interpretations to the frontier thesis that were developed in the 1920s and 1930s, see Nash, Creating the West. 21-28, 31-41.

28.Robert E. Reigel, American Moves West (New York: H. Holt, 1930). For more discussion on the topic of Turner's supporters in the 1930s, see Nash, Creating the West. 29-21.

29.Nash, 41-44. Franklin Roosevelt himself discussed the importance of the frontier in a campaign speech in September 1932, reprinted in The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Vol. I (New York: Random House, 1938), 746-747, 750, 751-752. His Secretary of Agriculture, Henry Wallace, also felt the frontier had been important in the formation of the nation in the past, and he advocated the creation of new frontiers in the future to take the place of the western frontier. See Henry Wallace, New Frontiers (New York: n.p., 1934). One of the leading economists who espoused the end of the frontier as the basic assumption underlying future economic planning was Aivin Hansen. See Alvin Hansen, Fiscal Policy and Business Cycles (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1941.

30.Athearn, The Mvthic West in Twentieth-Centurv America. 105; Slotkin, Gunfighter Nation. 254-257.

59 31.Slotkin, Gunfiahter Nation, 279. For more discussion of feature Westerns from 1938—1941, see also pp. 278-312.

32.Vannevar Bush, Science — The Endless Frontier: A Report to the President o n ^ Program for Postwar Scientific Research (Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, 1945).

33.Nash, Creating the West. 74.

34.Walter Prescott Webb, The Great Frontier (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1951), 6. Webb's book questioned the idea of the frontier as related to American exceptionalism. For more discussion of the debate over American exceptionalism, see Byron E. Shafer, ed., Is America Different? A New Look at American Exceptionalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991); Ian Tyrell, "American Exceptionalism in an Age of International History," in American Historical Review 96(October 1991): 1031-1067; Martin Ridge, "Ray Allen Billington, Western History, and American Exceptionalism, " Pacific Historical Review 56 (November 1987): 495-511.

35.Cronon, Miles, and Gitlin, "Becoming West," in Under an Open Skv, ed. by Cronon, Miles, and Gitlin, 4. Some histories which have criticized the traditional frontier thesis in the post-war era include William Appleman Williams, "The Frontier Thesis: An American Foreign Policy," Pacific Historical Review 24 (November 1956): 379-95; William Appleman Williams, The Contours of American History (Cleveland: World Publishing Company, 1961); Perry Miller, Errand into the Wilderness (Cambridge. MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1956); David Potter, People of Plenty: Economic Abundance and the American Character (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954). In the 1960s and beyond, historians became even more critical. This group includes, but is not limited to, Harold Simonson, "The Closed Frontier and the American Tragedy," Texas Quarterly 11 (Spring 1968): 56-61; Wilbur R. Jacobs, "The Indian and the Frontier in American History — A Need for Revision, " Western

60 Historical Quarterly 4 (January 1973): 43-56; Roland W. Berthoff, "The American Social Order: A Conservative Hypothesis," American Historical Review 65 (April 1961): 495-526; Gerald D. Nash, The American West in the Twentieth Centurv (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1977); Glenda Riley, "Frederick Jackson Turner Overlooked the Ladies," Journal of the Earlv Republic 13(Summer 1993): 216- 230.

36.Limerick, The Leaacv of Conquest, 324. See also Wilbur R. Jacobs, On Turner's Trail: 100 Years of Writing Western History (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1994).

37.See Richard W. Etulain, Re-imaainina the Modern American West: A Centurv of Fiction, History, and Art (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1996).

38.David Mogen, Wilderness Visions. 8-9, 29, 35.

39.Nash, Creating the West, 233.

40.Slotkin, Gunfiahter Nation, 347-353; Frederick Elkin, "Psychological Appeal of the Hollywood Western," Journal of Educational Psychology 24 (October 1950): 72-87. See also John H. Lenihan, Showdown: Confronting Modern America in Western Film (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1980) .

41.Slotkin, Gunfighter Nation, 348, 827-828; Athearn, The Mvthic West in the Twentieth Century. 183; Nash, Creating the West. 230. See also Marshall W. Fishwick, "The Cowboy: America's Contribution to the World's Mythology," Western Folklore 11 (1951-52): 72-92; Rita Parks, The Western Hero in Film and Television (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1982).

42.Limerick, The Legacy of Conquest. 323-324; Wrobel, The End of American Exceotionalism. 145; Limerick, "The Adventures of the Frontier in the Twentieth Century," in The Frontier in American Culture, ed. by Grossman, 80-81.

61 43-Fabian, "History for the Masses," in Under a Western Skv. ed. by Cronon, Miles, and Gitlin, 235- 6; Mogen, Wilderness Visions, 21-2; James R. Grossman, "Introduction," in The Frontier in American Culture, ed. by Grossman, 1.

44.Limerick, "The Adventures of the Frontier in the Twentieth Century, " in The Frontier in American Culture, 68; Gerald F. BCreyche, Visions of the American West (Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 1989), 271; Grossman, "Introduction," in The Frontier in American Culture, ed. by Grossman, 3-4. See also Cronon, Miles, and Gitlin, "Becoming West," in Under an Open Skv, ed. by Cronon, Miles, and Gitlin, 25; Richard Francaviglia, "Walt Disney's Frontierland as an Allegorical Map of the American West," Western Historical Quarterly 30(Summer 1999): 155-182.

45.Mogen, Wilderness Visions, 30.

62 CHAPTER 2

NASA AND THE SPACE FRONTIER: CONNECTING AMERICAN

HISTORY TO SPACE EXPLORATION

As the organization entrusted by Congress with the development of the American civilian space program,

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA) strived to justify space exploration in the

1960s. Americans found space exploration and particularly the idea of sending an American to the moon exciting, but at the same time it was becoming more difficult to accomplish these goals, which had to compete with other national priorities for funding, especially after the first few years of the space program. Sputnik and other Soviet successes in space had provided a sense of urgency for the American program in the late 1950s and early 1960s, but during the 1960s the United States became increasingly concerned with the war in Vietnam, racial conflict and

63 inequality, and funding for President Lyndon B.

Johnson's Great Society programs. With other issues demanding the nation's attention, NASA battled to preserve its mission and its future.

Agency officials soon found a metaphor for space that its audiences could understand: the frontier.

Both popular and intellectual interpretations of the frontier were fully developed by the late 1950s and early 1960s, and most Americans were familiar with them. Administrators introduced a version of Turner's frontier thesis to describe the benefits of investigating the new space "frontier," and employed popular frontier images to make the space program more exciting for their audience. These justifications not only targeted the public; NASA also used frontier rhetoric in correspondence with presidents and in budget requests to Congress. To a certain extent, the agency's application of the frontier to space exploration was a success. NASA's audience almost never challenged the use of the frontier to describe space exploration, and in fact, all of these groups utilized frontier imagery in their own discussions of the space program. Despite its accomplishments, NASA

64 was less successful in employing the frontier analogy

to justify its annual budget; the agency almost always

received less than it requested, and the differences

between what NASA wanted and what it received had

become quite significant by the late 1960s and 1970s.

NASA's Roots and the Frontier Tradition

Frontier imagery did not suddenly emerge in

discussions of the space program in the 1960s. Even

before Congress passed the National Aeronautics and

Space Act of 1958 and the subsequent creation of NASA,

the agency's predecessors, the military rocket

programs and the National Advisory Committee for

Aeronautics (NACA), used frontier language to

characterize the future of space exploration. Several

key figures in the military programs and in NACA later

became part of the NASA administration. As early as

1952, Dr. Wemher von Braun, then Technical Director

of the Army Ordnance Guided Missiles Development Group

in Huntsville, Alabama, and later director of NASA's

Marshall Space Center, contributed to a series of

65 articles in Collier* s> a national magazine targeting

the same general audience as the Saturday Evening Post

and Life. The editors of Collier's promoted future

space exploration in part as a response to the Cold

War. The series contributors, however, used language

that also brought to mind the frontier. These

articles provided the inspiration for a series of

space exploration episodes on Disney's weekly

television program, narrated by von Braun.^

Von Braun titled his first article in the

Collier's series, "Crossing the Last Frontier."

Several months later he wrote another article for the

same magazine, in which he described a future trip to

the moon as a "pioneer expedition" that "speeds

through space on its historic voyage." Although von

Braun was originally from Germany and only immigrated

to the United States at the end of World War II, by

the 1950s he was an American citizen and enthusiastically accepted basic assumptions about the nation's history, specifically its frontier heritage.

He brought with him his own vision of the space program when he joined NASA's ranks. Because he was a prominent expert in the field of rocketry, as well

66 as a charismatic speaker, newspaper accounts and other sources about the space program often quoted von

Braun's opinions, and throughout the rest of his life, he remained an outspoken advocate of Americans exploring the "space frontier.

While von Braun and other NASA employees applied their own historical assumptions to their job, the federal government also influenced the agency's goals.

The National Security Council provided a statement about United States space goals on June 6, 1958, and

NASA used it in formulating its policies and budget requests. Describing the importance of the American space program, the Council argued that space had a substantial effect on the imagination, more powerful than any other contemporary idea. This assumption provided the basis for further discussion of space policy, especially the scientific, military, and psychological benefits that would result from exploration. The Council also explained why it was important for people to travel into space, therefore creating a priority for manned space flight: "To the layman, manned exploration will represent the conquest of outer space. No unmanned experiment can substitute

67 for manned exploration in its psychological effect."

Despite the document's purpose of defining United

States space competition with the Soviet Union, the

National Security Council inadvertently set a tone for the space program that was oriented toward the frontier analogy as well.^

With the election of John F. Kennedy as President,

NASA used the frontier analogy even more to describe the American space program. In his "Urgent National

Needs" speech to Congress on May 25, 1961, Kennedy set a national goal of putting Americans on the moon before the end of the decade, referring to space as

"this new frontier of human adventure." NASA faced the same concerns as it had before Kennedy's election, but after May 1961 the agency had a new weapon on its side: the lunar landing goal. This objective provided validation for NASA's budget, and Kennedy's choice of language encouraged administrators to invoke the nation's frontier heritage more frequently and explicitly than they had before.^

68 Selling Outer Space

NASA officials targeted diverse audiences, and the

content of speeches and writings was therefore varied.

The common thread, however— whether the subject was a

scientific or technical issue, economics, space law,

or education— was the linkage of space exploration to

the nation's past. The agency's leadership recognized

that all people possessed an innate curiosity and desire to explore the unknown, but the connection of

American space exploration to the frontier went beyond

this universal sentiment. NASA, like Frederick

Jackson Turner almost seventy years earlier, saw the

American relationship to the frontier as unique. All humankind might benefit from the space program, but the initiative for exploration came from Americans.

Time after time, whether intentionally or unconsciously, NASA referred to space as the frontier.

Throughout agency publications and speeches, the word

"frontier" was repeatedly treated as a synonym for space. Because NASA's use of frontier language was never challenged, administrators were encouraged to use it even more. Wernher von Braun was one of the

69 earliest space enthusiasts to utilize frontier language, but others soon incorporated frontier rhetoric into their discussions of space exploration as well. Although various aspects of the frontier myth were stressed in some years and then basically ignored in others, the larger concept of the space frontier remained constant throughout the 1960s and

1970s, regardless of the popularity of individual programs. Edgar M. Cortright voiced the basic assumption of NASA's leadership, observing that "each generation faces the perennial crisis of running out of new frontiers to explore. Space exploration is the most recent of these 'last* frontiers.

Frontier anxiety was an early factor in American space exploration. Since most Americans believed that the Western frontier had been an important influence in United States history, they took a threat to that tradition seriously. When the Soviet Union successfully orbited Sputnik in October 1957, it seemed that America ' s frontier heritage had been threatened. How could the United States allow another country, especially a nation without a democratic political structure, to dominate what many people

70 considered to be the "last frontier?" "I am

profoundly worried," Von Braun admitted in a

Washington Post article in March 1960, "as to what has

happened to the American frontier spirit." He went on

to argue that it had been that spirit that had made

the United States one of the world's greatest nations,

and to forsake it at that juncture, he said, would be

to reject what the United States stood for, particularly liberty. Although anxiety about the waning of Americans * frontier spirit was not common in

NASA rhetoric, it did appear again in NASA's 1969

report on the future of space exploration, America's

Next Decades in Space. in reference to Sputnik's impact on the United States.®

Throughout the 1960s, NASA's leadership often alluded to the importance of the nation's frontier past, especially as it related to the current space effort. Von Braun described the American characteristic of answering challenges, "the courageous and free men who opened this continent to settlement [and] had the kind of spirit that transformed a virgin wilderness into the most complex social and economic structure that has ever existed on

71 earth.” NASA’s Future Programs Task Group also

recognized the impact of frontiers on the strength of the United States, claiming that historically there was a connection between "mastery" of frontiers and a nation's societal, economic, and political development. These types of assumptions formed the basis for NASA's use of frontier justifications for the space program.^

NASA carried observations of the frontier's impact on the nation's past even further, arguing that because space was also a frontier, it demanded the nation's attention. To not explore would be to reject what it meant to be American. The agency utilized this argument consistently when asked why the United

States should explore space, often before mentioning competition with the Soviet Union. Even before

Kennedy made the moon landing a national priority, administrators used frontier arguments to justify space exploration. Dr. T. Keith Glennan contended on the television program, "Report from Outer Space," in

May 1960, that "Space is the greatest new frontier to be breached by man in over four hundred years.... Backing away from this opportunity would be

72 a denial of our heritage." NASA also used this defense of space exploration when testifying before the House Committee on Science and Astronautics in

1960. "Our national pride," agency representatives maintained, "will not permit use to sidestep the challenge of space that lies before us. " Throughout the 1960s, NASA officials used these frontier arguments to support their plans for space exploration. ®

Within the agency, NASA employees also incorporated frontier references into dialogues about the space program. These discussions were at lower levels than management, and reflected the personal beliefs of employees. They showed the often undeliberate nature of frontier arguments. Center newspapers at the Kennedy Space Center and other NASA facilities included articles with frontier references, and one issue of Spaceport News even contained a cartoon with a nineteenth century prospector asking,

"Is thet 'space age' place anywher near the wide open spaces?" NASA employee Mel Barlow also echoed the frontier theme but recognized that associating space with the frontier past did not necessarily translate

73 into financial support for NASA's programs- Barlow

advocated the creation of a twentieth-century version

of Manifest Destiny to rally support for the future of

space exploration^ even though he warned that in the

current political and social climate such an

explanation might not be successful.®

NASA generated many of its own descriptions of the

space program but also paid attention to how others

described space exploration. NASA published some materials only available within the agency, including

three important sources. NASA's Office of Public

Affairs prepared Comment on the National Space Program

during the early 1960s. This publication was a

collection of statements about the American space

program by key public figures, to be used by

administrators as a measurement of public opinion on

space issues. The Public Affairs office also put out another internal reference source. Current News,

including clippings collected daily from a variety of newspapers around the country. Current News allowed

NASA employees, from administrators to scientists and engineers, to keep track of NASA's image in the newspapers. The Office of Legislative Affairs covered

74 debate about the space program in Congress and circulated daily Legislative Activities Reports.

These resources often included frontier rhetoric, and

NASA's leadership employed the same themes in speeches and other discourses about space exploration.

NASA used several specific words to explain why

Americans should support space exploration, including

"curiosity," "adventure," "challenge," and "destiny."

All of these words related the space frontier to westward expansion across the continent in the nineteenth century. As a result, these words were often used in correlation with more obvious forms of frontier imagery. NASA utilized this type of language to target all audiences, whether in presentations to

Congress, speeches to the public, or NASA publications.

According to NASA's leadership, curiosity was one explanation for the nation's exploration of space.

NASA employee George S. Trimble, Jr., connected

Americans' curiosity to explore to NASA's budgetary concerns, asking if it was possible to "put dollar numbers on satisfying a man's curiosity.NASA referred to curiosity in other publications and

75 speeches as welly connecting the desire for knowledgey the United States' exploring heritage y and the space

frontier. The agency utilized the curiosity argument most often in the early 1960s, before budget constraints became more severe. By the late 1960s, exploring space for the sake of satisfying curiosity was no longer an adequate explanation.

Many NASA arguments also included the subject of space exploration as a part of the nation's destiny.

While curiosity was a trait that could be attributed to all human beings, NASA saw destiny as distinctly connected to the American character, bringing to mind

Manifest Destiny as it related to nineteenth century expansion. Not all discussions of destiny originated with NASA. The interaction between NASA and Congress provides an interesting example of the use of the word

"destiny" as it related to space exploration. In one speech. Administrator James Webb quoted Representative

George Miller, chairman of the House Committee on

Science and Astronautics, who described the motivation of space exploration as "the desire for fulfillment of the ultimate destiny of mankind.

76 A third common theme was the idea of space as a

"challenge," once again related to the frontier.

Space challenges would strengthen the nation's character in the same way that historical frontiers had done for earlier generations of Americans. As

Homer E. Newell put it, "It is a challenge to the spirit of man that our Nation, with its tradition of leadership and forrward moving, cannot fail to accept."

If this modem generation of Americans rejected the challenge of space, it would not live up to the nation's past. Even as it became apparent to administrators that their future plans would be difficult to achieve within the budget constraints of the times, they used the concept of the challenge of the space frontier to sell future space programs.

NASA also related "adventure" to the American frontier past. Administrators often referred to the adventures to be had in space. As with "curiosity,"

"challenge," and "destiny," many NASA publications utilized the idea of adventure to explain space exploration to their readers. What is most interesting about the use of the word "adventure," however, is the extent to which it was used internally

77 by NASA. This idea seemed to encapsulate what many

employees felt about space exploration, especially the

Apollo program- Barlow explained it this way: "I

think it's more of a psychological and emotional

thing, of an adventure for the human race and

expansion of its capabilities."^®

These themes were present in NASA's earliest

justifications of its mission. In 1959, one of the

first agency publications for the general public, &

Technical Introduction to Space: The Challenge of

Space Exploration, presented space exploration as a

grand adventure, which its authors referred to as "the

Great Dream. " Although this pamphlet did not

specifically mention the words "frontier" or

"pioneer," space exploration was described as "a magnificent dream, compounded of [man's] inherent

spirit of adventure and his insatiable thirst for

knowledge. " The author also described space exploration as "conquest, " another term reminiscent of westward movement across the American continent.^®

Many people within NASA and throughout American society, viewed space potential in terms of colonization. They argued that one reason that the

78 United States must have an active space program was to keep other countries, especially the Soviet Union, from claiming too much territory on the moon and other planets. These people advocated the creation of space colonies, where Americans could live for extended periods of time away from Earth. While the technical aspects of creating a space colony— complete with long-term life support systems and living facilities for large numbers of people— made the project seem less likely over time, these difficulties did not dampen enthusiasm for the idea. NASA's future plans often mentioned colonies, even after the Apollo program ended. One NASA employee philosophically stated that it was "the new frontier type of thing of establishing settlements, and developing bases for the expansion of man.

Space colonization was closely linked to the concept of conquest. Von Braun often connected the future of space conquests to the nation's past, referring to frontiersmen and explorers such as

Christopher Columbus. However, von Braun was quick to clarify that the "conquest of space" did not mean

"beating little green men into submission and staking

79 out a nationalistic claim on the universe" but,

instead, a less violent process of "visits to a few of

our close celestial neighbors. Historically,

Americans have not wanted to be labelled as

imperialists, particularly in reference to outer space. Unlike past conquests, which pitted nation against nation, NASA's goal was to use "ideas, creativity, and peaceful cooperation" to master space.

The American space program was not to be a threatening venture, but a peaceful enterprise that would eventually include other countries. NASA chose the word "conquest" to describe the space program not only for its historical connotations, but because the word seemed to express the difficult nature of exploring space. Something that would not succumb easily had to be "conquered;" space would not welcome explorers, but would require their greatest efforts.^

NASA administrators also continued the tradition of linking science and the frontier begun by Vannevar

Bush during World War II, a natural connection since scientific experimentation was a major part of the space program. NASA's use of frontier rhetoric in explaining the scientific elements of the space

80 program convinced its audiences of the values of space

exploration. Deputy Administrator Hugh L. Dryden

stressed the importance of the scientific frontier in

a letter to Senator Robert S. Kerr, Chairman of the

Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences,

and again echoed this theme a few months later when he

told the American Astronautical Society that interest

in space exploration would increase attention to other

scientific "frontiers" as well.^°

NASA emphasized the importance of the scientific

frontier to many audiences. Dryden utilized this argument when speaking to the House Committee on

Science and Astronautics in 1961, and Webb also discussed the importance of the scientific frontier when responding to 1965 appropriations. Trying to create interest in future space programs of the 1970s and 1980s, NASA again put space exploration in the context of progress to be made on the frontiers of science. The agency continued the discussion of the scientific and technological frontier when targeting the general public, claiming that "solar system exploration is a major scientific frontier that

81 deserves a place of priority in a balanced program of scientific research-

NASA encouraged the general public to think of space as a frontier in very specific ways. One common symbol was the trail blazer. Just as frontiersmen had blazed trails across the wilderness, creating a path for civilization to follow, space explorers of the

1960s would create a space "trail" for others to follow in the future. Administrator Thomas Paine acknowledged that the Apollo 8 mission was important because "many men will follow the trail these three astronauts blazed." And just as the army and frontier explorers of the past had sent scouts to determine the dangers of the American West, astronauts would become the new scouts of space. Unmanned spacecraft could also play an important role in this stage of exploration. Most references were to the human role in space exploration, although unmanned craft could fulfill the same role without endangering human lives

NASA's leadership compared space explorers to frontiersmen and pioneers, describing characteristics that could be applied to astronauts similar to those

82 that had previously described nineteenth-century explorers. Space pioneers would be the nation's new heroes, as men like Daniel Boone and Kit Carson had been to earlier generations. Astronauts had two major traits considered part of the American identity, as molded and defined by the frontier: individualism and self-reliance. They also had other characteristics that made them particularly well-suited to be explorers of the space frontier, including curiosity, a love of adventure, determination, and above all, courage. In fact, the trait most commonly mentioned in accounts about American astronauts of the 1960s was courage. What was amazing about these descriptions was how an individualistic, self-reliant space explorer could be dependent upon the actions of hundreds of thousands of Americans who contributed to the space program's success.

Although NASA referred regularly to participants in the space program as pioneers, even more often the agency stressed the importance of the nation's

"pioneering spirit." Just as there had been something special about earlier generations of Americans exploring the frontier of the American west, it was

83 necessary for modern citizens to have the same attitude in exploring space. NASA warned against the possibility of the decline of the nation's frontier

spirit? the basic assumption was that the nation's

strength would also decrease without the traditions that had originally made it great, an echo of Turner's

fears at the turn of the century. NASA emphasized this theme for public audiences, but it was also

common throughout the agency itself and echoed the assumptions of many NASA employees. NASA's beliefs about the United States' pioneering heritage also reflected the convictions of other groups within the political arena, as both Democrats and Republicans utilized the same language in discussions of the space program.

Administrators often linked early European explorers to the New World, pioneers who later settled the continent, and space explorers. They viewed the

Renaissance as an important era in Western history because of its climate of intellectual and social change and believed that the Space Age could develop in a similar manner. As Robert Jastrow observed,

"earlier explorations extended the horizons of the

84 times in a literal sense, but even more important, by opening up new possibilities, they forced people out of their established patterns of thought." He believed that the space program could have a similar long-term impact. NASA's leadership pointed out that although most early explorers were economically motivated, the long-term results of their adventures were much broader, creating a new powerful civilization in the New World. Emphasizing this perceived connection between the European Age of

Exploration and the Space Age, one NASA publication contained illustrations of both an explorer's ship and a rocket

General comparisons of the space program to the

European Age of Exploration were supplemented by discussions of explorers from this earlier time period. Von Braun described these earlier explorers' motivations, as well as those of modern space explorers, as "a bujming desire to discover the unknown." As late as the 1980s, NASA utilized frontier and exploration images in its publications, as evidenced by illustrations in Space Pioneers and

Where They Are Now. which included drawings of

85 European explorers and their ships, as well as

Conestoga wagons.^®

Of all European explorers, NASA administrators

referred most often to Christopher Columbus. Columbus was a symbol all Americans could identify with, as

they were taught about his accomplishments from early

childhood. Thus, if NASA administrators made

reference to Columbus, they were certain that their

audiences had a common understanding of who he was and what larger ideas he symbolized. A number of NASA's publications and speeches made casual reference to

Columbus, but many went into greater detail, using

Columbus's example to prove larger arguments. Those people involved in the American space program were

sometimes compared to early European explorers.

Raymond F. Larson compared the role he had in building the Apollo modules to a person helping to build the

Santa Maria, while Astronaut Alan B. Shepard, Jr., was once referred to as the "American Christopher Columbus of space exploration."^"'

NASA most commonly referred to Columbus in response to criticisms about the money spent on space, with no guaranteed returns. The agency answered these

86 criticisms with the argument that Columbus had not known what he would discover either— and where would the United States be if Ferdinand and Isabella of

Spain had refused to finance him? With such potential, it would be a mistake for the United States not to support NASA's program. The Director of NASA's

Goddard Spaceflight Center, Dr. Harry J. Goett, connected this theme to the Cold War. He drew an analogy between Spain supporting Columbus to beat the

English in finding a sea route to India and the United

States racing the Soviet Union to put the first person on the moon. Of what consequence could the expense be when the results were so important? While the long­ term results of space exploration were not always immediately obvious, some people stressed that it took more than a century for the significance of Columbus ' discovery to be fully realized, when Europeans, and specifically the English, established permanent settlements in the New World.

In one area in particular administrators seemed to take their cues from outside the agency: discussions of space as an ocean and Americans as a "spacefaring" people. In doing so, NASA's leadership strengthened

87 the connection between modern-day space exploration

and European exploration of the New World centuries

earlier. The origins of the term "spacefaring" was

President Kennedy's "Urgent National Needs" speech to

Congress in May 1961, when he had claimed that

Americans "must set sail on this new sea because there

is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be

won," thus making the United States "the world's

leading spacefaring nation." Since Kennedy had set

the lunar landing goal, the agency felt comfortable in

using his words to justify their missions, sometimes

to the general public but most often to Congress when

defending NASA's budget requests. NASA officials

recognized the usefulness of having such a high

profile spokesman for their mission.

Although NASA administrators never credited

Turner's frontier thesis for their ideas, many

rationalizations of the American space program were

Turnerian. At their simplest level, NASA's arguments

implied that the space frontier would have an enormous

impact on all areas of American society, from politics

and economics to intellectual and spi ritual values.

Webb argued that "space exploration has become a

88 powerful societal force exerting great influence upon our present and future— socially, economically, politically, and morally." Over and over again, to many different audiences, the agency's representatives stressed these aspects of the space program, referred to sometimes as "practical" benefits, "spinoffs," or

"intangibles." These reasons might not explain why the United States was originally involved in the space program, but they could explain the necessity of future programs and funding, as well as shore up sagging interest in space over time.^°

Administrators also incorporated Cold War competition with the Soviet Union into Turnerian justifications of the space program. Just as Turner had argued that the frontier had made the United

States unique, NASA argued that space exploration proved American exceptionalism, not only through its results but also by the process used. The space program emphasized the positive aspects of the

American way of life, particularly when compared to that of the Soviet Union. Dr. Thomas Paine explained that NASA's full disclosure of its programs "has brought home to the people of all nations the nature

89 of our free society, the scientific and technical

power of the United States, [and] our governmental and

industrial capability to organize and apply this

power." Much like John Winthrop's seventeenth-century

vision of the Puritans as an example to the rest of

the world, the space program would help the United

States once again be the "City on a Hill" for all mankind. NASA administrators called this phenomenon

"national prestige." It was this quality, the ability

to undertake such a large-scale venture in an open and

honest manner, that would contribute to the nation's

stature as "leader of the Free World.

NASA believed that the space program influenced

the character and political structure of the nation,

as the western frontier had done for previous

generations. Webb claimed that the space program of

the 1960s strengthened United States "economic, social

and political institutions." Christopher Kraft was

even more emphatic in his defense of the space

program, arguing that Americans had a historical

tradition of freedom that was being threatened, and

space exploration was one way to protect that freedom.

Without a future space program, Kraft was pessimistic

90 about the rights that Americans took for granted.

Even when looking at future space programs beyond the

1960s, NASA still incorporated discussions of how the space program would affect national "vitality.

Proponents of the frontier thesis at the turn of the century had argued that it was the existence of the frontier that had created a strong United States economy and had led to industrialization. Similarly, space program advocates maintained that the space frontier could have comparable results for the nation's economy. As James T. Dennison explained it,

"The challenge of the exploration of space, of putting our fellow man safely into a desperately hostile environment, has provided a spur to great segments of our business economy. The impact of the space program on industry was very great, affecting many areas not directly related to the aerospace industry.

The agency marketed the space program as insurance against technological obsolescence in the future. Not only did the space program provide an impetus for industry, it also led to the introduction of more than twelve thousand new products, in diverse categories ranging from medicine to weather forecasting, from

91 electronics to computers. More than ten years after the first moon landing, NASA was still pointing to the positive impact of the Apollo program on the nation's economy.

Outside of industry, NASA claimed that the space program would have a major impact on education. As with industry, where space exploration encouraged the growth of new industries as well as further development within established companies, space stimulated interest in education and led to new frontiers of inquiry, especially in the sciences. Dr.

George Mueller referred to this process as "the promotion of educational and intellectual ferment."

If Sputnik had called into question American educational competence, then the success of the Apollo program reassured Americans of its high quality, contributing to the nation's confidence in its abilities. NASA considered intellectual rejuvenation as important as economic improvement, and, in fact, often linked the outcome of one to the other.

NASA also touted space exploration for its positive psychological effects on the American people.

These effects were similar to the psychological impact

92 that Turner's frontier had had on the American character. NASA explained these beliefs by asking,

"How does one place a dollar value on the effect of the American frontier in shaping present American character and the view of our own future?" NASA believed that the challenges arising from space exploration gave Americans the incentive to work harder and to expand their horizons, intellectually and spiritually. According to administrators, the space frontier particularly inspired American youth.

Perhaps the space program's greatest psychological impact, however, was its effect on Americans' feelings about themselves and their country. At a time when the United States faced criticism both at home and abroad, this influence was important. NASA's leadership stressed national pride, arguing that the nation ' s image had been improved by its space accomplishments, in its own estimation and the world's. The agency felt after the success of the first moon landing that the space program made

"Americans stand taller in their own eyes," and gave them "a sense of achievement, and of the ability to achieve." If the United States could send Americans

93 to the moon, then the nation could also solve the many other serious problems it faced.

NASA repeatedly contended that the exploration of space could lead to the solution of problems back on

Earth. In the early years of the space program, this claim was part of NASA's justification of its mission but did not dominate discussions of space exploration.

Webb once stated that "it is the spirit of the frontier which is needed everywhere today to meet the problems which we all confront." NASA's problem­ solving skills were occasionally mentioned in the early 1960s, but they were increasingly emphasized by the late 1960s and early 1970s. The practical benefits of space exploration were more resilient than the intangible ideas of adventure, curiosity, and destiny; but this change represented only a change in focus on a different part of the frontier myth, not a complete rejection of its accuracy. The agency shifted its emphasis to a certain extent by its own initiative but also responded to external sources, such as the media and outside contractors.^®

In many respects, NASA was surprised that its audience did not maintain the same views as it did

94 over the course of the space program. In spite of numerous attempts to explain the importance of the agency's mission over the years, in the long term it seemed that most Americans were willing to support space exploration in theory but were unwilling to make sacrifices to ensure its success. NASA was baffled that it was unable to convince its audience about the importance of space exploration, not only scientifically but also to the nation's character and longevity. Only one year after the first moon landing, astronaut Neil Armstrong reflected on his hopes for the future, explaining that he had hoped that Apollo 11 "might take our minds away from some of the more mundane and temporal problems that we as a society face, ...and look a little further into the future with an aim toward solving problems before they become problems." With such high expectations,

Armstrong was bound to be disappointed.^^

Audiences Targeted

NASA's leadership was concerned with how to best explain annual budget requests to Congress. The

95 frontier was a useful analogy to describe the

relevance of the American space program to

congressional committees during authorization

hearings. Testifying before the House Committee on

Science and Astronautics in February I960, NASA

officials referred to the history of exploration on

Earth, establishing the importance of exploration to the human psyche. Once they had established the historical basis for exploration, administrators then

introduced the topic of the frontier, stating that

" [w] e yield to the urge to explore that is an American heritage.... Our national pride will not permit us to sidestep the challenge of space that lies before us."‘*°

NASA's Office of Legislative Affairs was responsible for the relationship between Congress and the agency. One of the office's main responsibilities was to follow all references to NASA or space exploration within the proceedings of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. The staff compiled daily newsletters to be distributed throughout the administration, similar to the Current News publication issued by the Office of Public Affairs.

Legislative Activities Reports detailed all potential

96 laws related to the agency, space committee schedules, congressional polls of constituents regarding space, and any additional discussions of the nation's space program. The staff often included pages from the

Congressional Record to supplement the report. In addition, the Legislative Affairs office provided information requested by members of Congress. Often members of Congress inserted material from speeches and newspaper articles into the Congressional Record that included frontier themes.

NASA remained concerned about its budget during the early years of the Apollo program. In spite of the goal of a lunar landing by the end of the decade.

Congress tried to pare down the agency's budget each year. Time after time, the House Committee on Science and Astronautics called NASA officials to testify. In each case, the agency used frontier rhetoric as one way to justify its budget requests. And, while committee members often challenged dollar amounts, they never questioned the frontier as an accurate description for the national space program.

Presidents could affect NASA's portrayal of itself and its goals to Americans, but the opposite was also

97 true. Administrators tried to influence presidents* discussions of space exploration as well. One example of the interaction between the executive branch and

NASA was Kennedy's speech in Houston, Texas, on

September 12, 1962. NASA officials drafted an early version of the speech for Kennedy, and although the final copy was not exactly the same, the spirit of

NASA's version remained intact. NASA's draft claimed that for Americans not to go to the moon was "like telling young Daniel Boone to stick to his furrow in

Pennsylvania." Their draft also referred to Americans as "pioneers" and alluded to Columbus's voyage to the

New World.Kennedy's actual speech was not as obvious in connecting space to Americans' frontier heritage (it contained no mention of Daniel Boone, for example) . Nonetheless, Kennedy justified American space exploration by reflecting on the founding of

Plymouth Bay and explaining that "we set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won." NASA made the president's speech available to the press as a news release, while at the same time making it part of the internal communications of the agency, including it in Comment

98 on the National Space Program under the heading "Why

We Must Lead in Space.

NASA officials also employed frontier themes in

speeches presented to the educated public. In a

speech to the Worcester Economic Club on February 15,

1960, NASA Administrator T. Keith Glennan explained the cost of American space programs by stating that human nature demanded exploration of unknown territory. In terms similar to Turner's frontier thesis, Glennan described how advances from space exploration would provide solutions to domestic problems, such as starvation and disease. He ended his presentation with the rationalization that it was

America's frontier heritage that motivated space exploration— success "will be particularly a part of the pioneering tradition that has made this a nation of individuals, free to risk their future as each may choose.

Other NASA employees also utilized these frontier themes when addressing educated audiences. Deputy

Administrator Dryden made a number of speeches containing the common theme of space as a new frontier, with all of the benefits as well as the

99 costs. Associate Administrator Richard E. Horner echoed the frontier theme, claiming in an address to the Society of Technical Writers and Editors that "the aesthetic values of learning more about the history of the universe, or the creation of the solar system, is a form of 'exploring the West* for the scientists."

Horner thus defined the frontier not only as space travel but also the scientific research necessary to accomplish NASA's goals.

In addition, NASA administrators attempted to familiarize the general public with the space program, once again using frontier themes. One example of this goal was the "Report From Outer Space," an NBC television special that aired on May 14, 1960.

Several NASA representatives were guests on the show.

The purpose of the special, as introduced by reporter

Peter Hackes in the opening segment, was to explain why Americans should be involved in space exploration.

When Hackes asked Glennan how NASA could justify its budget, Glennan claimed that "space is the greatest new frontier to be breached by man in over four hundred years. ... Backing away from this opportunity would be a denial of our heritage." D. D. Wyatt,

100 Assistant Director of Space Flight Programs ^ echoed

Glennan*s emphasis by elaborating on the benefits of

"frontier" exploration for the nation's economy and standard of living.'*®

NASA also published educational materials about the nation's space goals and what NASA was doing to achieve them. These publications targeted visitors to

NASA facilities, students, and other curious citizens and also employed frontier language. In Manned Space

Flight — 1963. Dr. Brainerd Holmes discussed the technical details of putting Americans in space, but also claimed that "man can assume the role of an explorer in space just as he has been an explorer on the surface of the earth." Space ... the New Frontier touched upon many frontier themes that were prevalent in American historical thought at the time and once again made a strong connection between United States history and space exploration.'*^

NASA was always concerned with the public's perceptions of space exploration. The agency not only kept track of the popularity of its programs but also did what it could to influence the public's perceptions. By 1968, NASA already reported more than

101 a million visitors to its facilities each year and

said the numbers would increase in the future. At the

same time, NASA disseminated 4.5 million publications

to people throughout the nation, "entirely in response

to requests. " These numbers did not include the

millions who viewed NASA films, toured space exhibits,

and watched news accounts about the Apollo program

that same year. Such numbers allowed NASA to claim

that its programs were widely popular with American

audiences. As many of these resources included

frontier references, millions of Americans were also

exposed to the importance of the space frontier.^®

The Apollo 11 Fifty State Tour was one example of

NASA's attempt to keep the public interested in space

exploration. The Apollo 11 command module, a lunar

rock sample, and other Apollo memorabilia made up a popular travelling exhibit. The tour spent approximately one week in each state capital, and 3.25 million people saw the exhibits. Associate Deputy

Administer Willis H. Shapley reflected on the "pride and enthusiasm" expressed by Americans who viewed the exhibit, pointing out that in the future even more people could see the spacecraft at the Smithsonian

102 Institution, where it would be on permanent exhibit.

The tour was one example of how American space accomplishments could improve national pride.

NASA also used spacemobiles to educate the public about the nation's space program. Spacemobiles were special trucks set up with traveling exhibits, including everything from models of rockets and satellites to a variety of experiments. These exhibits targeted a wide variety of Americans, from school children to women's groups and other organizations. While much of the program dealt with technical aspects of space exploration, lecturers also focused on why the space program was important and what NASA hoped to accomplish in the future. It was in these areas that the frontier theme was prominent.

By 1965, NASA had twenty-eight spacemobiles travelling throughout the United States, reaching more than twenty million people by the end of the decade.

The spacemobile was not NASA's only outreach tool.

The agency utilized a variety of resources to educate as many different groups in American society as possible. NASA worked with states to create new science and industrial arts curricula and coordinated

103 with the Boy Scouts to develop a merit badge in Space

Exploration. The agency created an exhibit to teach the blind about space exploration, which was enthusiastically received by the children who toured it. NASA also developed a special exhibit, the U.S.

Space Park, for the 1964 World's Fair in New York

City. Astronaut Scott Carpenter's spacecraft, Aurora

7, was prominently displayed and drew many visitors.

Many of these resources included frontier imagery.

In spite of all of the materials put out by NASA in the 1960s to explain the space program. Public

Affairs director Julian Scheer claimed that "we decided we would not run a propaganda program. We decided we would not run a public relations program."

Scheer stated that the purpose of the Public Affairs office was not to "sell" the space program but to educate its audiences about NASA's purpose. As such, it targeted three main audiences: schools, the general public, and the media. NASA's goal was to present information in a factual, non-biased manner, letting its audience determine for itself what its opinions would be. Although NASA officials gave hundreds of

104 public speeches each yeary they were not required to get the agency's approval.

Notwithstanding Scheer*s claims about the purpose of the Public Affairs office, NASA was concerned with public perceptions of the space program and tried to influence public opinion. The Office of Public

Affairs was very much a part of these efforts, not only putting together in-house publications, such as

Comment on the National Space Program and Current

News, but also issuing the agency's press releases, including both general factual information and a number of speeches given by NASA administrators. At the minimum, these news releases were meant to give a positive slant to the space program; most could be classified as advertising, an attempt to "sell" the values of space exploration first to the media and then to its audiences. Frontier language often dominated press releases, especially speeches. By the early 1970s, the agency was making more direct attempts to influence public opinion about the importance of the space program by concentrating on space spinoffs having "some emotional appeal" and utilizing this approach in its interactions with

105 Congress- These discussions tended to reflect

Turner's argument about the impact of the frontier on the American economy and industry rather than popular frontier myths.

NASA's Motivations and Budget Challenges

NASA administrators recognized the limitations within which they had to make the space program work.

Much of their language was therefore aimed at garnering the most support possible within those constraints. Space funding regularly competed with funding for other national priorities as well. In most cases, NASA administrators not only had to justify the importance of exploration in and of itself, but also explain why the space program should be funded to the requested level when other deserving programs also needed support. They routinely incorporated frontier themes into these j ustifications.

In spite of the Apollo program's success, by the late 1960s, NASA had major concerns about future program budgets. Lack of funding jeopardized even

106 Apollo's final missions. Conscious of these obstacles, NASA administrators created strategies to make the space program seem both viable and necessary.

As early as 1966, Webb warned President Lyndon B.

Johnson about potential reductions in NASA's budget for fiscal years 1967 and 1968. Webb predicted that budget constraints placed on the agency by Congress and the Bureau of the Budget would make it difficult, if not impossible, for NASA to have an active, successful program in future years. He recommended that the president should strengthen NASA's arguments for a strong budget by making a speech about the agency's future exploration of the space frontier

"that would constitute a ringing challenge for the next half century.

By 1968, NASA's budget concerns were even more serious. Still worried about budget cuts, Webb made the text of a speech by Homer Newell into a position paper for the agency's future. Sending a copy of the speech, "Space Plans and Possibilities," to Robert

Gilruth, Webb stated that it delineated "some of the steps we must all take to achieve the promise of the next ten years in space."®® Webb encouraged Gilruth

107 and others within NASA to utilize Newell's arguments in their own speeches and writings. According to

Newell, "after a decade of unparalleled success we find ourselves having to resell our fellow citizens this greatest adventure of mankind." He argued that those involved in the space program, from administrators to scientists and engineers, needed to work harder to justify the value of space exploration to the nation. Newell stressed over and over not only the excitement of exploring space, but also the practical benefits of the space program back on earth, connecting the space frontier to the nation's future advancement. Both of these elements needed to be developed and "sold" to Americans if NASA was to have a strong future. Newell's ideas often echoed throughout NASA's discussions of its purpose in the following years.

NASA made a concerted effoirt to explain its budget needs to the nation throughout the 1960s and 1970s, usually framing its justifications in terms of the value of space exploration. In October 1968, von

Braun expressed concern at lagging support for the space program. When asked why the nation's support

108 for NASA's programs had declined, von Braun listed a number of reasons, including Vietnam, urban riots, and a lack of excitement with the space program. NASA also had to respond to questions about the expense of the space program. One common question raised by letters written to the agency was why so much money should be spent on space when there were so many problems back on Earth. As always when asked this question, NASA claimed that the process used to put

Americans on the moon and the technological improvements developed through space experimentation would also help solve the Earth's problems, an echo of

Turner's analysis of the role of the frontier in the nineteenth century.

After the first moon landing, NASA increasingly came under fire from those who wished to reduce its budget. Kennedy's goal had been accomplished, and many Americans felt that NASA's job was over. As domestic and foreign policy problems demanded the nation's resources, critics argued that the space program was neither necessary to human life nor deserving of so much money and attention. The Soviet threat had receded as the two countries entered a

109 period of detente, and the urgency to surpass the

Communists in every endeavor faded. In short, it seemed as if NASA's time had passed; the nation had moved on to other endeavors. NASA worked to improve its image in this difficult climate. Although before

Apollo 11 there were critics of the space program, opposition increased during subsequent missions. As

Robert Gilruth described it, "The sense of adventure of space gave way to concern about the problems here on Earth." In an era of domestic and international turmoil, many Americans found the frontier a less persuasive justification for space spending.^®

Congress reduced NASA's budget even further for the 1970s. "The funding dried up after we landed on the moon," astronaut Buzz Aldrin later noted. Budget crunches forced NASA to prioritize its programs on the basis of those most likely to receive congressional funding. The space shuttle, with its recyclable features, seemed to be the best approach for future manned space initiatives. Beyond the shuttle, NASA had to be content with unmanned space probes. The agency gave up future lunar missions entirely and put fanciful ideas for moon colonies and space mining on

1 1 0 hold. These new plans were practical, but they failed to capture the spirit of adventure of the earlier

Apollo era. There were few new frontiers to explore with the space shuttle, since it remained near the

Earth. It was also difficult to have frontiersmen and pioneers in the traditional sense when using unmanned space probes. NASA continued to use frontier rhetoric to describe the space program, but the analogy did not

fit as well as before.^®

Much of the excitement from the moon landing dissipated quickly, and the new space shuttle program was unable to renew a long-term public interest in the space program. In the 1960s, the House Committee on

Science and Astronautics boasted several influential members, but by the 1970s the committee no longer had the same stature and up-and-coming congressmen were not as interested in serving on it. NASA was aware of how important it was to have the support of members of

Congress. The agency tried to let members experience the excitement of the space frontier firsthand, inviting them to significant launches. NASA was disappointed to not be called upon for its managerial

1 1 1 expertise to solve other national problems, in spite of often advertising itself in that manner.®®

NASA faced a number of criticisms after the first moon landing in 1969. Some people accused the i^ollo program of just being a publicity stunt to embarrass

the Soviet Union in the midst of the Cold War. Such critics rejected the assumption that it was the nation's destiny to explore space. Many people also advocated using the money allocated for the space program for other, more pressing needs. NASA often had to defend the cost of the Apollo program, and whether such a large amount of money should be spent on something that many saw as having no tangible benefits. Critics dismissed NASA's arguments that the space program contributed to the nation's economy by employing large numbers of people. Instead, they claimed, the space program diverted educated people from dealing with other problems back on Earth. These critics refused to accept Turnerian arguments about the value of the space frontier for the nation.®^

The greatest criticisms of NASA came from those who had other priorities by the late 1960s. Many

Americans felt that their concerns competed with the

112 space program. Although the war in Vietnam was

increasingly less popular by the late 1960s, it still

demanded a large share of the nation's resources. The

war also placed pressure on members of the House

Committee on Science and Astronautics, forcing the

committee to relate its budget recommendations to the

demands made by the Vietnam War and domestic programs-

NASA administrators recognized the difficult position

of the committee members but warned against drastic

budget cuts that could make NASA technologically

obsolete.^

Some Americans claimed that "the expenditure of

$40 billion to land two men on the moon [was] a

racist, sexist, and elitist waste of tax money.

Among these critics of NASA, many African Americans

did not understand how the space program benefitted

them. Caught up in the Civil Rights Movement, blacks

wanted the money spent on the space program redirected

to address their economic difficulties, especially in

the inner cities. African Americans endured poor

living conditions, high unemployment, and limited

educational opportunities. Civil rights activists

argued that space funds, if transferred to pay for

113 programs like Medicaid, educational reform, job training, and rejuvenation of the inner cities, might have a greater impact on the lives of African

Americans.

NASA tried to answer its critics with reassurances about the importance of the space frontier.

Administrators acknowledged that there were problems on Earth that needed to be solved, but disputed critics ' claims that the space program diverted funds from these issues. On numerous occasions when responding to criticisms about the amount of money spent on space, NASA's leadership pointed out that its budget was actually spent back on Earth, keeping hundreds of thousands employed who then spent their paychecks within their communities, impacting the nation's economy far beyond the limits of the actual space program. While NASA administrators recognized the opposition of many African Americans to the space program, they claimed that the United States space program represented all Americans, "regardless of religion, color, or political affiliation.

114 Conclusion

From the beginning of NASA's existence, the frontier myth influenced the agency's mission. NASA officials took their cues from outside influences, including the military space programs, presidents, and

Congress, but also incorporated their own basic assumptions about the importance of American historical frontiers. As a result, frontier rhetoric permeated NASA's discussions of space exploration.

The agency utilized both popular and intellectual frontier imagery to justify the space program.

Administrators compared astronauts to frontiersmen, pioneers, and Christopher Columbus. They described space exploration as a "challenging" "adventure," something done by a "curious" and "courageous" people.

At the same time, NASA's leadership also related space to Frederick Jackson Turner's frontier thesis.

Administrators argued that space would have an impact similar to earlier American frontiers, rejuvenating the American spirit, encouraging economic and technological growth, and protecting the nation's democratic values for future generations.

115 Presidents, the Congress, and the majority of

American citizens agreed with the agency's perceptions

of the frontier's importance in United States history

and were convinced that space was the nation ' s new

frontier. Despite growing opposition to the amount of

money spent on space exploration by the late 1960s and

1970 s, most Americans still accepted NASA's view of

America's frontier legacy and its connections to

space. The following chapters further develop the

interaction between these groups and NASA.

116 Endnotes

1.The Collier's articles include "What Are We Waiting For?," Collier*s, March 22, 1952, 23; W e m h e r von Braun, "Crossing the Last Frontier, " Collier's. March 22, 1952, 25-29, 72-73; Wernher von Braun, "Man on the Moon: The Journey," Collier's. October 18, 1952, 52-59; Fred L. Whipple, "Is There Life on Mars?," Collier's. April 30, 1954, 21; Wernher von Braun and Cornelius Ryan, "Can We Get to Mars?," Collier's, ^ril 30, 1954, 22-29. The three Disney television programs, narrated by Wernher von Braun, included "Man in Space" (1955), "Man and the Moon" (1955), and "Mars and Beyond" (1957). See also Randy Liebermann, "The Collier's and Disney series," in Frederick I. Ordway III and Randy Liebermann, eds., Blueprint for Space: Science Fiction to Science Fact (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1992), 69-82; Mike Wright, "The Disney-von Braun Collaboration and Its Influence on Space Exploration," in Daniel Schenker, Craig Hanks, and Susan Kray, eds., Inner Space/Outer Space: Humanities. Technology, and the Postmodern World: Selected Papers from the Southern Humanities Conference. February 12-14. 1993 (Huntsville: Southern Humanities Press, 1993), 151-160. Space vehicle names also provide an example of the connection between military and civilian programs. Both NASA and its predecessors were inspired by frontier terms when naming spacecraft. See Helen T. Wells, Susan H. Whitely, and Carrie E. Karegeannes, Origins of NASA Names (SP-4401) (Washington, D.C. : NASA, Scientific and Technical Information Office, 1976), 20, 83, 88-90, 93.

2.von Braun, "Crossing the Last Frontier," Collier's; von Braun, "Man on the Moon, " Collier's. 52. In a letter from Wernher von Braun to Dr. Donald R. Bernhardt, December 7, 1961, he explained that "being a naturalized citizen, I have an avid interest in Americana." Letter located in Library of Congress Manuscript Division (hereafter referred to as LOC), Wernher von Braun papers. Box 31. Biographies of von Braun's life in the United States include Erik Bergaust, Reaching for the Stars (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1960);

117 Erik Bergaust, W e m h e r von Braun (Washington, D.C. : National Space Institute, 1976).

3 .National Security Council, NSC 5814, "U.S. Policy on Outer Space," in John M. Logsdon, et. al., eds.. Exploring the Unknown: Selected Documents in the History of the U.S. Civil Space Program, Vol. I, Organizing for Exploration (Washington, D.C.: NASA History Office, 1995), 346, 349.

4.President John F. Kennedy, "Urgent National Needs," speech to Joint Session of Congress, May 25, 1961, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA National Headquarters, Washington, D.C. (Hereafter referred to as NHRC), President John F. Kennedy, White House Files.

5 .Werhner von Braun, "Crossing the Last Frontier," Collier's, March 22, 1952, 25; Wernher von Braun, speech to American Newspaper Publishers Association, New York City, April 28, 1960, NHRC, News Releases; Wernher von Braun, Space Frontier (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963, 1967); Charles A. Berry, "Man, Space Flight, and Medicine," in Space Technology to Benefit Man: AIAA Student Journal 10 (Feb. 1972), 9; James C. Fletcher, "Being Our Best," in Skvlab: OutPOSt on the Frontier of Space, EP-124 (Washington, D.C.: NASA and National Geographic Society, 1974); Edgar M. Cortright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Space Sciences and Applications, Space Exploration — Why and How. EP-25 (Washington, D.C.: NASA, 1965). For a philosophical discussion of the connection between the frontier and space exploration, see Why Man Explores: A Symposium held at Beckman Auditorium, California Institute of Technology, Pasedena, California. July 2, 1976, EP-125 (Washington, D.C.: NASA, 1976).

6.Wernher von Braun, article in Washington Post. March 20, 1960, reprinted in Current News. NHRC; NASA, America's Next Decades in Space: A Report for the Space Task Group. Sept. 1969, p. 4, NHRC, Nixon White House Files. The editors of the Washington Post called von Braun's article "one of the most inspiring articles on the subject you will ever

118 read." See also Eugene M. Eknme, A History of Space Flight (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965), 103, 120-122.

7.Wernher von Braun, speech to National Life Insurance Company, Montpelier, VT, Oct. 11, 1960, LOC, von Braun papers. Box 47; NASA, "Summary Report: Future Programs Task Group," January 1965, in Logsdon, Exploring the Unknown. Vol. 1, 474-475. See also John Glenn, space quote from Los Angeles Herald Tribune, May 11, 1969, in "NASA Space Quotes," June 1969, Johnson Space Center Archives, Woodson Research Center, Rice University (hereafter referred to as JSCA) , NASA News Releases, Box 1544; L.J. Evans, President of Grumman Aerospace Corporation, to Dr. Thomas O. Paine, NASA Administrator, July 3, 1969, NHRC, Nixon White House Files; Robert C. Seamans, Jr., address to 1961 Air Force/ Aerospace Corporation Symposium on Ballistic Missile and Aerospace Technology, los Angeles, CA, Aug. 29, 1961, NHRC, News Releases. Howard McCurdy calls the beliefs of NASA officials "frontier mentality, " although he does not define what "frontier" means. See Howard E. McCurdy, Inside NASA; High Technology and Organizational Change in the Space Program (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993), 71, 75, 77.

8.T. Keith Glennan, comments on "Report from Outer Space," World Wide 60, NBC, May 14, 1960, NHRC, News Releases; "General Statement on the NASA Space Flight Program," in U.S. Congress, House, Eighty-Sixth Congress, Second Session, on H.R. 10246, 1961 NASA Authorization: Hearing Before the Committee on Science and Astronautics and Subcommittees Nos. 1. 2. 3, and 4. February 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 26, 1960 [no. 4], p. 159; James Webb, "Reasons For Space Program," speech at Montana State University, Oct. 30, 1963, NHRC, Comment on the National Space Program; "Impetus," Goddard News. July 13, 1964, NHRC, Center Newspapers; James E. Webb, "Seven Years of Progress — Explorer 1 Toward Apollo," speech to Young Men's Christian Association, Oklahoma City, OK, Jan. 11, 1966, Archives of American Aerospace Exploration, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

119 (hereafter referred to as VA Tech), Evert B. Clark Papers, Box 2. More than a decade after the first moon landing, NASA still made these arguments. See "Report of the Transition Team for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration," Dec. 19, 1980, p. 3, NHRC, Reagan White House Files; Andrew J. Stofan, Space Station: A Step into the Future, PAM 510/11-87 (Washington, D.C.: NASA, 1987); Franklin D. Martin and Terence T. Finn, Space Station: Leadership for the Future. PAM 509/8-87 (Washington, D.C.: NASA, 1987); NASA. NP-111 (Washington, D.C.: NASA, n.d.).

9.Cartoon, Spaceport News. Feb. 14, 1963, NHRC, Center Newspapers; Oral history interview with Mel R. Barlow, pp. 17, 21-22, JSCA, Apollo Spacecraft History Interviews, Box 074-41. See also "Cherie Lee Likes Math, Music," Spaceport News. July 18, 1968, NHRC, Center Newspapers.

10.Comment on the National Space Program, Current News, and Legislative Activities Reports are all located at NHRC.

11.Oral history interview with George S. Trimble, Jr., September 22, 1969, p. 32, JSCA, Apollo Interview Files, Box 074-54.

12."Why?," KSC Spaceport News. April 18, 1963, NHRC, Center Newspapers; "This Generation is Part of Greatest Revolution of All Times, Purser Tells Nuclear Space Seminar," Space News Roundup. September 5, 1962, NHRC, Center Newspapers; NASA Historical Staff, Historical Sketch of NASA (Washington, D.C.: NASA, 1965), 46; "Letter from Washington," NASA Activities. October 1977, reprinted in Sun, Earth, and Man: The Need to Know: The Ouest for Knowledge of Sun-Earth Relations (Washington, D.C.: NASA, 1982); Dr. Wernher von Braun, speech before the American Newspaper Publishers Association, New York City, April 28, 1960, NHRC, Press Releases; T. Keith Glennan, address to the Worcester Economic Club, Worcester, MA, February 15, 1960, NHRC, News Releases; James E. Webb, "Reasons for Undertaking Space Exploration," address the Explorers Club, New York City, November

12 0 2, 1962, NHRC, Comment on the National Space Program; Charles S. Sheldon, II, "The Challenges of International Competition," paper presented at the AIAA/NASA Third Manned Space Flight Meeting, Houston, Texas, November 6, 1964, p. 2, JSCA, Misc. Subject Files, Box 1549.

13.Wernher von Braun, "The Struggle for the Future," speech at the University of Florida, May 8, 1959, LOC, von Braun papers. Box 47; Wernher von Braun, speech to the Delta Council, Cleveland, Mississippi, May 14, 1959, LOC, von Braun Papers, Box 47; Memo to Members of Planning Steering Group from Homer E. Newell, June 19, 1968, "Guidelines for Development of a Manned Space Flight Program for the 1970s," JSCA, Misc. Subject Files, Box 1551; Draft of Long Range Lunar Plan, May 2, 1969, JSCA, Apollo Program Chronological Files, Box 071-32/33; U.S. Congress, House, Eighty-Sixth Congress, Second Session, on H.R. 10246, 1961 NASA Authorization; Hearings Before the Committee on Science and Astronautics and Subcommittees Nos. 1. 2. 3, and 4, February 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 26, 1960 [No. 4], p. 161; U.S. Congress, House, Eighty-seventh Congress, First Session, on H.R. 3238 and H.R. 6029 (superseded by H.R. 6874), 1962 NASA Authorization: Hearings Before the Committee on Science and Astronautics and Subcommittees Nos. 1. 3, and 4. April 18, 19, 20, 21, and 24, 1961 [No. 7], Part 2, p. 791; speech by Representative George Miller as quoted by James E. Webb and Hiden T. Cox, Annual Convention of the American Association of School Administrators, Atlantic City, NJ, February 18, 1962, NASA News Release 62-34, JSCA, NASA News Releases, Box 1539.

14.Homer E. Newell, "NASA Space Science and Applications Program," address at the NASA- University Program Review Conference, Kansas City, Missouri, March 2, 1965, reprinted in Speaking of Space & Aeronautics, vol. 1, no. 7, May 1965; Manned Flight Awareness, "Future Space Challenges," in Apollo 14 ... Another Giant Leap (Houston; Johnson Space Center, 1971), NHRC, Robert Sherrod Apollo Collection; Robert R. Gilruth to Dr. George E. Mueller, November 5, 1969, JSCA, Apollo Program

1 2 1 Chronological Files, Box 072-11/12; Draft of Long Range Lunar Plan, May 2, 1969, JSCA, Apollo Program Chronological Files, Box 071-32/33. See also Wernher von Braun, speech at Framingham College, Framingham, MA, May 3, 1960, LOC, von Braun Papers, Box 47; Address by Robert C. Seamans, Jr., before the I.A.S. National Propulsion Meeting, Cleveland, Ohio, March 8, 1962, NASA Press Release no. 62-54, JSCA, NASA News Releases, Box 1539; Robert C. Seamans, Jr., "Space Capabilities of the Nation," address before the National Space Club, November 17, 1965, VA Tech, Evert B. Clark Papers, Box 2; Eugene M. Eitime, Aeronautics and Astronautics: An American Chronology of Science and Technology in the Exploration of Space. 1915-1960 (Washington, D.C.: NASA, 1961), iii, 90;

15.Wernher von Braun, speech, October 15, 1959, LOC, von Braun papers. Box 47; Hugh L. Dryden, Remarks at the opening session of the Twelfth International Congress of Astronautics, Washington, D.C., October 2, 1961, News Release No 61-218, NHRC, Press Releases; D. Brainerd Holmes, "Why the Space Program is Imperative," speech to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Washington, D.C., April 20, 1963, NHRC, Comment of the National Space Program; Harold Leland Goodwin, Space: Frontier Unlimited (Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1962), 7, 114; NASA, Spaceflight Beyond the Moon, Revised ed. (Cleveland: Electromagnetic Propulsion Division, Lewis Research Center, NASA, May 1965); NASA "In this Decade ...": Mission to the Moon (Washington, D.C.: NASA, 1969); Quote by Senator Stuart Symington in Goddard News. August 24, 1964, NHRC, Center Newspapers; Oral history interview with Mel R. Barlow, January 28, 1970, p. 18, JSCA, Apollo Spacecraft History Interviews, Box 074—41; Oral History Interview with Christopher Kraft, December 16, 1972, p. 8, JSCA, Apollo Spacecraft History Interviews, Box 074-45; Oral History Interview with A.J. Dessler, May 26, 1971, pp. 5-6, JSCA, Apollo Spacecraft History Interviews, Box 074—41. See also transcript for "Salute to Apollo," dinner and speech for NASA on January 22, 1973, pp. 2-3, JSCA, Apollo Program Chronological Files, Box 074-26/31.

1 2 2 16.National Aeronautics and Space Administration, A Technical Introduction to Space: The Challenge of Space Exploration (Washington, D.C.: NASA, 1959), 2.

17.Oral History Interview with Raymond F. Larson, July 16, 1970, p. 9, JSCA, Apollo Spacecraft History Interviews, Box 074-45; Discussion between Evert Clark, Newsweek, and Walter M. Schirra, Jr., on Meet the Press. Nov. 10, 1968, transcript, VA Tech, Evert B. Clark Papers, Box 4; Outlook for Space: A Synopsis: Report to the NASA Administrator bv the Outlook for Space Study Group, January 1976, pp. 49-51, JSCA, Miscellaneous Subject Files, Box 1552; James Fletcher to President Gerald Ford, Aug. 23, 1976, NHRC, Gerald R. Ford, White House Files.

18.Wernher von Braun, article in the Washington Post. March 20, 1960; Wernher von Braun, speech to the 6325th USAR Information Unit, Los Angeles, Aug. 5, 1959, LOC, von Braun papers. Box 47; Wernher von Braun, speech to the Minnesota Education Association, Winona, MN, Oct. 15, 1959, LOC, von Braun papers. Box 47.

19.James Webb, speech at NASA's Fifth Anniversary Celebration, Washington, D.C., Oct. 1, 1963, NHRC, Comment on the National Space Program. See also Dr. George E. Mueller, address at the dedication of Grissom and Chaffee Halls, Purdue University, Lafayette, IN, May 2, 1968, JSCA, Apollo Program Chronological Files, Box 069-62/63/64; James E. Webb, speech to Plans for Progress Seminar, Los Angeles, CA, June 11, 1964, reprinted in Goddard News. Aug. 24, 1964, NHRC, Center Newspapers. Emme, Aeronautics and Astronautics, ix; NASA, Space ... the New Frontier (Washington, D.C.: NASA, Office of Educational Programs and Services, 1963, 1964), 5; "General Statement of the NASA Space Flight Program," in U.S. Congress, House, Eighty-Sixth Congress, Second Session, on H.R. 10246, 1961 NASA Authorization: Hearings Before the Committee on Science and Astronautics and Subcommittees Nos. 1. 2. 3. and 4. Feb. 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 26, 1960 [no. 4], 176. See also Maxime A. Faget, "Technology: Past, Present, and Future," Space

123 Technology to Benefit Man: AIAA Student Journal, 10 (February 1972), 8.

20.Hugh L. Dryden, NASA Deputy Administrator, to Robert S. Kerr, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, June 22, 1961, NHRC, Kennedy White House Files; Hugh L. Dryden, "The National and International Significance of the Lunar Exploration Program, " Banquet address at Symposium on Manned Lunar Flight, American Astronautical Society Program at 128th meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Denver, CO, Dec. 29, 1961, NASA News Release 61-286, NHRC, Kennedy White House Files. See also Hugh L. Dryden, "The National Significance of the Augmented Program of Space Exploration," speech before the Commercial Club of Cincinnati, Oct. 21, 1961, NASA News Release 61-233, NHRC, NASA Press Releases; Homer E. Newell, "What We Have Learned and Hope to Learn from Space Exploration," in NASA and the Dniversities: Principle Addresses at the General Sessions" NASA-Dniversitv Conference on the Science and Technology of Space Exploration, Chicago, Illinois. November 1. 1962. EP-5 (Washington, D.C.: NASA, 1962), 61.

21.Testimony of Dr. Hugh L. Dryden, in U.S. Congress, House, Eighty-Seventh Congress, First Session, on H.R. 6874, 1962 NASA Authorization; Hearings Before the Committee on Science and Astronautics. July 11, 12, and 13, 1961, [no. 7], Part 3, p. 1044; James E. Webb, "NASA Statement of Appropriation Bill," Aug. 30, 1964, NASA News Release 64-221, JSCA, NASA News Releases, Box 1540; NASA, America's Next Decades in Space; A Report for the Space Task Group. Sept. 1969, NASA History Office, President Richard M. Nixon, White House Files; Arthur Henderson, Jr., and Jerry Grey, eds.. Exploration of the Solar System. EP-122 (Washington, D.C.: NASA and AIAA Technical Committees on Space Systems and Atmospheric Physics, 1974). See also Robert R. Gilruth to Barbara Ann Decker, March 18, 1969, JSCA, Apollo Program Chronological Files, Box 071-23/24.

124 22.statement by Thomas O. Paine, in Apollo 8 : Man Around the Moon. EP-66 (Washington, D.C. : NASA, n.d.). See also Space: The New Frontier (Washington, D.C.: NASA, 1967), 4; "In this Decade ..."rMission to the Moon (Washington, D.C.: NASA, 1969).

23.Goodwin, Space: Frontier Unlimited, 123-24; Oral history interview with Tom Stafford, no date (pre-1969), p. 9, NHRC, Robert Sherrod Apollo Collection, Interviews; The Triumph of Astronaut L. Gordon Cooper. Jr.. and the Faith 7. Mav 15-16, 1964 (Houston: NASA, Manned Spacecraft Center, 1963); Robert C. Seamans, Jr., "Space Capabilities of the Nation," address to the National Space Club, Washington, D.C., LOC, von Braun papers. Box 52; NASA, Space .. the New Frontier. 34; Mueller, dedication of Grissom and Chaffee Halls, JSCA, Box 069-62/63/64. See also Eugene Cernan's comments at "Salute to Apollo," dinner and speeches for NASA, Jan. 22, 1973, transcript p. 24, JSCA, Apollo Program Chronological Files, Box 074-26/31; Testimony of James Webb, in U.S. Congress, House, Eighty-Eighth Congress, First Session, on H.R. 5466 (superseded by H.R. 7500), 1964 NASA Authorization : Hearings Before the Committee on Science and Astronautics. March 4 and 5, 1963 [no. 3], Part 1, p. 6. Almost two decades after the first moon landing, NASA still used pioneer imagery to describe astronauts. See Earl J. Montoya and Richard 0. Fimmel, Space Pioneers and Where They Are Now. EP- 264 (Washington, D.C.: NASA, 1987), 1-2.

24."Impetus," Goddard News, July 13, 1964, NHRC, Center Newspapers ; Oral history interview with H.B. Cathers, June 10, 1966, p. 9, JSCA, Apollo Spacecraft History Interviews, Box 071-32/33; Memo by Julian Scheer, Re: Democratic and Republican Party Platforms, Sept. 13, 1968, JSCA, j^ollo Program Chronological Files, Box 070-34/35; Statement by President Richard Nixon at "Salute to Apollo," dinner and speeches for NASA, Jan. 22, 1973, p. 45, JSCA, Apollo Program Chronological Files, Box 074-26/31.

125 25.Robert Jastrow, "Developing Social Skills for Research in the Space Sciences," NASA and the Universities. 41; NASA, America's Next Decades in Space. 4, NHRC, Nixon White House Files; Mueller, dedication address of Grissom and Chaffee Halls, JSCA, Box 069-62/63/64; NASA, John F. Kennedy Space Center: America's Spaceport (JFK Space Center, FL: NASA, Office of Public Affairs, Sept. 1, 1967) , NHRC, Robert Sherrod Apollo Collection.

26.Hugh L. Dryden, "The Exploration of Space," address to the 23rd National Applied Mechanics Conference, Pennsylvania State University, June 21, 1960, NHRC, News Releases (Lief Ericson was mentioned numerous times in Dryden's speeches); Wernher von Braun, "Because It Is There," Space Journal of the Rocket Citv Astronomical Association (Summer 1957), 39; John A. Johnson, "The New Frontier of Space," address to the New York Patent Law Association, New York City, March 24, 1961, NASA News Release no. 61-56, NHRC, News Releases; Earl J. Montoya and Richard O. Fimmel, Space Pioneers and Where They Are Now. EP-264 (Washington, D.C. : NASA, 1987), cover, 1. See also NASA, Historical Sketch of NASA. 48.

27."Apollo 8 Follows Up Unmanned Lunar Flights," NASA Space Sheet. Vol 6, No. 22, Dec. 1968, Printed by NASA, Public Information Division, NHRC, Robert Sherrod Apollo Collection; Oral history interview with Raymond F. Larson, p. 9, JSCA, Apollo Spacecraft History Interviews, Box 074-45; Caption on picture of Alan B. Shepard, Jr., Space News Roundup. June 27, 1962, NHRC, Center Newspapers. See also Ernst Stuhlinger, "Outlook to Space Travel," Space Journal of the Rocket Citv Astronomical Society (Summer 1957), 17.

28.Wernher von Braun, "The Price of Space," speech to the Men's Dinner Club, Oklahoma City, Nov. 18, 1959, LOC, von Braun Papers, Box 47; Jack C. Oppenheimer, "Socio-economic and Political Aspects of Space," address to the Rotary International, Lincoln, NE, Nov. 14, 1961, NASA News Release 61- 245, NHRC, News Releases; "Dr. Goett Compares Space Race With Columbus * Age of Discovery, " Goddard News.

126 April 15, 1963, NHRC, Center Newspapers; Oral History Interview with Dr. Rocco Petrone, pp. 51-52, NHRC, Robert Sherrod Apollo Collection, Interviews; NASA, Space . . . the New Frontier. 4. W e m h e r von Braun also related Christopher Columbus to space exploration in a children's book written in 1958. See Wernher von Braun, First Men to the Moon (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1958), 11-13.

29.James E. Webb, address to Upper Midwest Research and Development Council, Jan. 29, 2963, reprinted in Congressional Record. Senate Proceedings. Feb. 25, 1963, pp. 270-2781, reprinted in NHRC, Legislative Activities Report, Feb. 25, 1963; Statement by James E. Webb, in 1964 NASA Authorization: Hearings Before the Committee on Science and Astronautics. Part 1, 4-5; James E. Webb, address at annual banquet. Greater Hartford Chamber of Commerce, Hartford, CT, Oct. 1, 1962, JSCA, NASA News Releases, Box 1539; Charles S. Sheldon, II, "The Challenge of International Competition," Nov. 6, 1964, JSCA, Misc. Subject Files, Box 1549; "Ceremonies Mark 5 Years of Tracking," Goddard News. Feb. 11, 1963, NHRC, Center Newspapers; Historical Sketch of NASA. 35; James E. Webb, speech for "Salute to Apollo," p. 33, JSCA, Box 074-26/31. NASA administrators eventually took the idea over as their own, using "spacefaring" language without reference to Kennedy's speech. See "Impetus," Goddard News. May 4, 1964, NHRC, Center Newspapers; Hugh L. Dryden, "Looking Ahead in Space," in Speaking of Space & Astronautics. Vol. 1, No. 4, March 1965, VA Tech, Evert B. Clark Papers, Box 1; "In this Decade ...": Mission to the Moon (Washington, D.C.: NASA, 1969).

30.Webb and Cox, speech to American Association of School Administrators, JSCA, Box 1539; James E. Webb, "Seven Years of Progress— Explorer I Toward Apollo," speech to Young Men's Christian Association, Oklahoma City, OK, Jan. 11, 1966, VA Tech, Evert B. Clark Papers, Box 2; Administrator James E. Webb, Memorandum to NASA Program Offices, Headquarters, Directors, NASA Centers and Installations, July 5, 1961, in John M. Logsdon, Dwayne A. Day, and Roger D. Launius, eds.. Exploring

127 the Unknown: Selected Documents in the History of the g.S. Civilian Space Program, Vol. II, Relationships (Washington, D.C.: NASA, 1996), 494- 495. See also Frank W. Anderson, Jr., Orders of Magnitude: A History of NACA and NASA, 1915-1980 (SP-4403) (Washington, D.C.: NASA, Scientific and Technical Information Branch, 1981), viii.

31.Dr. Thomas 0. Paine, "Space Exploration and National Security," Air Force/Space Digest, May 1969; James Webb, address at Iowa Bankers Association 77th Annual Convention, Des Moines, Iowa, reprinted in Goddard News, Nov. 18, 1963, NHRC, Center Newspapers; America^s Next Decades in Space. 6, 73, NHRC, Nixon White House Files; NASA, Summary Report: Future Programs Task Group. Jan. 1965, in Logsdon, Exploring the Unknown. 475; James E. Webb, address to American Society of Newspaper Editors, Washington, D.C., April 20, 1963, NHRC, Comment on the National Space Program; James Webb, address at Mills College, Oakland, CA, Oct. 28, 1966, JSCA, NASA News Releases, Box 1541.

32.James E. Webb, Remarks on the Presentation of the Collier Trophy to the Project Gemini Team, Oct. 19, 1966, JSCA, NASA News Releases, Box 1541; Oral history interview with Christopher Kraft, Dec. 16, 1972, JSCA, Apollo Spacecraft History Interviews, Box 074-45; Outlook for Space. 5, JSCA, Box 1552.

33.James T. Dennison, NASA Technology Utilization Office, paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Business Economists, Sept. 26, 1963, NHRC, Comment on the National Space Program. See also D. Brainerd Holmes, Director, NASA Office of Manned Space Flight, speech to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Washington, D.C., April 20, 1963, NHRC, Comment on the National Space Program; Associate Administrator Robert C. Seamans, Jr., "The Challenge of Space Exploration," speech to the 1961 Air Force/ Aerospace Corporation Symposium on Ballistic Missiles and Aerospace Technology, Los Angeles, CA, Aug. 29, 1961, NASA News Release 61-190, NHRC, News Releases; Robert C. Seamans, Jr., speech before the printing industry, Nashville, TN, Jan. 18, 1962,

128 NASA News Release 62-10, JSCA, NASA News Releases, Box 1539.

34.W e m h e r von Braun, interview in "Has U.S. Settled for No. 2 in Space?," U.S. News & World Report. Oct. 9, 1968; Robert C. Seamans, Jr., "Action and Reaction, " the 1969 Minta Martin Lecture (Cambridge, MA: MIT and the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1969), 90; NASA Deputy Administrator Hugh L. Dryden to Robert S. Kerr, Chairman of Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, June 22, 1961, NHRC, Kennedy White House Files; Hugh L. Dryden, "The National and International Significance of the Lunar Exploration Program," Dec. 29, 1961, NHRC, Kennedy White House Files; Mueller, dedication address of Grissom and Chaffee Halls, JSCA, Box 069-62/63/64; Robert R. Gilruth, speech. May 8, 1963, VA Tech, Robert R. Gilruth Papers, Box 4; This Is NASA (Washington, D.C.: NASA, Public Affairs Division, 1979). "Report of the Transition Team for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration," Dec. 19, 1980, in NHRC, President Ronald Reagan, White House Files.

35.Mueller, dedication of Grissom and Chaffee Halls, JSCA, Box 069-62/63/64; Seamans, "Action and Reaction," 80-81; Robert R. Gilmth, commencement address to Michigan College of Mining and Technology, Aug. 22, 1963, VA Tech, Robert R. Gilruth Papers, Box 4; "Impetus," Goddard News. Sept. 21, 1964, NHRC, Center Newspapers.

36.Draft of Long Range Lunar Plan, 1, JSCA, Box 071-32/33; Dr. Hugh L. Dryden, testimony, 1962 NASA Authorization: Hearings Before the Committee on Science and Astronautics. Part 3, p. 1043; Alfred J. Eggers, Jr., address to Science Teachers Association of Santa Clara County, Ames Research Center, CA, Feb. 2, 1965, VA Tech, Evert B. Clark Papers, Box 2. For discussions of how space exploration impacts young people, see NASA, Space ... the New Frontier (Washington, D.C.: NASA, Office of Educational Programs and Services, 1963, 1964), 2; Arthur Henderson, Jr., and Jerry Grey, eds.. Exploration of the Solar System. EP-122 (Washington, D.C.: NASA and AIAA Technical Committees on Space Systems and Space

129 and Atmospheric Physics, 1974); Outlook: for Space. 6, JSCA, Box 1552. NASA still made this argument in the 1980s, as discussed in "Report of the Transition Team for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration," NHRC, Reagan White House Files; Darina What Others Dream (Washington, D.C.: NASA, 1984).

37.America's Next Decades in Space, 73, NHRC, Nixon White House Files; Goodwin, Space: Frontier Unlimited. Ill; "As Spacemen Look Beyond the Moon: Interview with Thomas O.Paine, Head of National Aeronautics and Space Administration," U.S. News & World Report. July 7, 1969. References in the 1980s include "Report of the Transition Team for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration," 2, NHRC, Reagan White House Files; Franklin D. Martin and Terence T. Finn, Space Station: Leadership for the Future. PAM 509/8-87 (Washington, D.C.: NASA, 1987). See also William H. Schauer, The Politics of Space : A Comparison of the Soviet and American Space Programs (New York: Holmes and Meier, Publishers, 1976), 92-105.

38.Manned Space Center News Release, "Webb Discusses Benefits of Space Age Technology,” June 18, 1962, JSCA, MSC News Releases, Box 1544; James E. Webb, address at Mills College, Oakland, CA, Oct. 28, 1966, JSCA, NASA News Releases, Box 1541; Robert R. Gilruth, diary. May 8, 1967, VA Tech, Robert R. Gilruth papers. Box 4; Interview with Dr. Thomas O. Paine, NASA Administrator, Meet the Press. Nov. 16, 1969, p. 8, NHRC, Nixon White House Files; R.T. Benware, Director, Philco Houston Operations, to Kenneth S. Kleinknecht, Manager of Apollo Skylab Program Office, Feb. 4, 1972, with accompanying document, "Why Look Into Space?," JSCA, General History Documents, Box 1555. See also Robert C. Seamans, Jr., to Vice President Spiro T. Agnew, Aug. 4, 1969, in Logsdon, Exploring the Unknown. 522.

39.NASA News Release, July 16, 1970, from News Conference on First Anniversary of Manned Moon Landing on July 8, 1970, with Neil Armstrong and Julian Scheer, NHRC, Robert Sherrod Apollo Collection.

130 40.1961 NASA Authorization. Bçfçrç Committee on Science and Astronautics and Subcommittees Nos. 1, 2. 3. and 4. February 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 26, 1960 [no. 4], 159. See also Mark E. Byrnes, Politics and Space: Image Making Bv MASA (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1994).

41.U.S. Congress, House, Eighty-Seventh Congress, Second Session, on H.R. 10100 (Superseded by H.R. 11737), 1963 NASA Authorization, Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Manned Space Flight of the Committee on Science and Astronautics, March 6, 7, 8, 14, 20, 26, 27, 28, 29, April 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10, 1962 [No. 2], Part 2, pp. 472-3, 717. See also U.S. Congress, House, Eighty-Seventh Congress, Second Session, on H.R. 10100 (Superseded by H.R. 11737), 1963 NASA Authorization. Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Advanced Research and Technology of the Committee on Science and Astronautics, March 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 23, 27, 28, 29, and April 3, 1962 [No. 2], Part 3, pp. 1327, 1629; 1964 NASA Authorization, Hearings Before the Committee on Science and Astronautics, pp. 4-6.

42.NASA draft of Houston Speech for President John F. Kennedy, September 12, 1962, pp. 13, 17-18, NHRC, Kennedy White House Files.

43.Remarks of President John F. Kennedy at Rice University Stadium, Houston, Texas, September 12, 1962, NHRC, Kennedy White House Files; John F. Kennedy, "Why We Must Lead in Space," from address at Rice University, Houston, Texas, September 12, 1962, NHRC, Comment on the National Space Program.

44.Glennan, address to the Worcester Economic Club, NHRC, News Releases.

45.Hugh L. Dryden, "Prospects for Space Travel," the Penrose Lecture before the American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, April 21, 1960, NHRC, News Releases; Hugh L. Dryden, "The Role of Engineering in Space Exploration," Luncheon Talk at the Annual Meeting of the National Society of Professional Engineers, Boston, Massachusetts, June 10, 1960, NHRC, News Releases;

131 Hugh L. Dryden, "Science and Engineering in the Space Age," luncheon talk at the 1960 National Summer Meeting of the Institute of the Aeronautical Sciences, Los Angeles, California, June 29, 1960, NHRC, News Releases; Richard E. Horner, address at the Seventh Annual Convention of the Society of Technical Writers and Editors, meeting jointly with the Technical Publishing Society, Chicago, Illinois, April 21-22, 1960, NASA News Release 60-173, NHRC, News Releases. See also Dr. John P. Hagen, "Space and Its Challenge to Engineering, " speech before the Newark College of Engineering, Newark, New Jersey, April 28, 1960, NHRC, News Releases; Dr. Robert C. Seamans, Jr., and Dr. Robert Jastrow, "The Role of Higher Education in the Developing Space Age," presentation before the Sixteenth National Conference on Higher Education, Chicago, Illinois, March 8, 1961, NASA News Release 61-39, NHRC, News Releases; James E. Webb, remarks to the First National Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, Tulsa, Oklahoma, May 26, 1961, NASA News Release 61-114, NHRC, News Releases; James E. Webb, address at the Chamber of Commerce Dinner, Salt Lake City, Utah, September 29, 1961, NASA News Release 61-216, NHRC, News Releases.

46.Statements by T. Keith Glennan and D.D. Wyatt in "Report From Outer Space, " World Wide 60, NBC, May 14, 1960, released as a NASA News Release, NHRC, News Releases.

47.Dr. Brainerd Holmes, Manned Space Flight — 1963 (Washington, D.C.: NASA, 1963), 1, 17; Space ... the New Frontier.

48.NASA, America's Next Decades in Space. 77, NHRC, Nixon White House Files.

49.Donald L. Zystra, tour manager, "Report on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Apollo 11 Fifty-State Tour, 1970-1971," submitted June 1971, NHRC, Robert Sherrod Apollo Collection. For more discussion of NASA's connection of the frontier and national pride, see paragraphs corresponding to footnotes 36 and 37 in this chapter.

132 50."Spacemobiles to Operate from Goddard — Five States to Be Covered,” Goddard News. Nov. 18, 1963, NHRC, Center Newspapers; "Spacemobile Lecture Scheduled Next Week," KSC Spaceport News, Oct. 14, 1965, NHRC, Center Newspapers; Webb and Cox, Annual Convention of the American Association of School Administrators, JSCA, Box 1539; "NASA to Negotiate with Unitec Corp. for Spacemobile Program," NASA Press Release 65-188, June 8, 1965, JSCA, NASA News Releases, Box 1540; NASA, America's Next Decades in Space. 76-77, NHRC, Nixon White House Files. See also "Spacemobile Plans for Pennsylvania Set," Goddard News. Jan. 27, 1964, NHRC, Center Newspapers; "What Happens When Goddard's Spacemobile Program Comes to Town?," Goddard News. Dec. 26, 1966, NHRC, Center Newspapers.

51.NASA, America's Next Decades in Space. 77; Seamans, "Action and Reaction," 96; "Don't Miss the Space Park at the World's Fair," Goddard News. May 18, 1964, NHRC, Center Newspapers; Webb and Cox, speech to Annual Convention of the American Association of School Administrators, JSCA, Box 1539.

52.Dr. Eugene M. Emme, NASA Historian, "Notes on Seminar Discourse of Mr. Julian Scheer, July 26, 1967," JSCA, Apollo Program Chronological Files, Box 068-43/44; Letter from Julian Scheer to Robert Gilruth, Jan. 3, 1969, JSCA, Apollo Program Chronological Files, Box 070-61-62. See also Brian Duff, Interview by Dr. John Mauer, April 24, 1989, in Oral History Collection, Department of Space History, National Air and Space Museum (hereafter referred to as OHC); Brian Duff, Interview by Dr. John Mauer, April 26, 1989, in OHC.

53.Memo from Deputy Administrator George M. Low to NASA's Associate Deputy Administrators, May 18, 1971, NHRC, Impact Files, Congressional Relations. For additional discussion of NASA and public relations, see Richard Hirsch and Joseph John Trento, The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1973), 48, 170-172; Brian Duff Interview, April 24, 1989, OHC; Brain Duff Interview, April 26, 1989, OHC.

133 5 4. Let ter from James E. Webb, NASA Administrator, to President Lyndon B. Johnson, August 26, 1966, in Logsdon, Exploring the Unknown, Vol. I, 491-492.

55.Letter from James E. Webb to Dr. Robert R. Gilruth, Director, Manned Spaceflight Center, February 7, 1968, JSCA, Skylab Chronological Files, Box 535.

56.Homer E. Newell, "Space Plans and Possibilities," speech to the Honors Night Banquet of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, January 13, 1968, JSCA, Skylab Chronological Files, Box 535.

57."Has U.S. Settled For No. 2 in Space?," U.S. News & World Report, October 9, 1968; "Most-Asked Questions About Space," NASA Facts. Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Public Affairs Office, 1973, Jack McCaine Collection, Rice University Manuscript Collection (hereafter referred to as RUMC), Box 5. See also Transcript for Meet the Press, November 10, 1968, VA Tech, Evert B. Clark Papers, Box 4; Transcript for Meet the Press. May 21, 1967, VA Tech, Evert B. Clark Papers, Box 4.

58.Robert Gilruth, "Wings Club Speech," ca. 1976, VA Tech, Robert R. Gilruth Papers, Box 4.

59.Douglas MacKinnon and Joseph Baldanza, Footprints: The 12 Men Who Walked on the Moon Reflect on Their Flights, Their Lives, and the Future (Washington, D.C.: Acropolis Books, Ltd., 1989), 42; Robert Gilruth, "Wings Club Speech;" Arthur Henderson, Jr., and Jerry Grey, eds.. Exploration of the Solar System. EP-122 (Washington, D.C. : NASA and AIAA Technical Committees on Space Systems and Space and Atmospheric Physics, 1974).

60.Ken Hechler, The Endless Space Frontier: A History of the House Committee on Science and Astronautics. 1959-1978, AAS History Series, Vol. 4 (San Diego: American Astronautical Society, 1982), 327; Homer E. Newell, Bevond the Atmosphere: Early Years of Space Science (Washington, D.C.: NASA,

134 Scientific and Technical Information Branch, 1980), 325; Letter from Acting NASA Administrator Thomas O. Paine to Representative Olin E. Teague, Jan. 3, 1969, NHRC, Impact Collection, Congressional Relations Correspondence. For acknowledgement of the pressure that Congress faced about funding the space program, see Aoollo 16 Mission Report: Hearing Before the Committee on Science and Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives, Ninety-Second Congress, Second Session, May 16, 1972 [No. 18], p. 2 2 .

61.William David Compton, Where No Man Has Gone Before: A History of Lunar Exploration Missions (Washington, D.C.: NASA, Scientific and Technical Information Division, 1989), 1, 270; John Noble Wilford, We Reach the Moon (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., Inc., 1971), 21, 147, 151-152. See also Alex Roland, "Barnstorming in Space: The Rise and Fall of the Romantic Era of Spaceflight, 1957-1986," in Radford Byerly, Jr., ed., Space Policy Reconsidered (Boulder: Westview Press, 1989), 39.

62.Charles Murray and Catherine Bly Cox, Apollo: The Race to the Moon (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989), 460; Statement by Dr. George E. Mueller in U.S. Congress, House, Ninetieth Congress, Second Session, on H.R. 15086 (superseded by H.R. 15856), 1969 NASA Authorization: Hearings Before the Committee on Science and Astronautics, Feb. 7 and 8, 1968 [No. 3], Part 1, 120, 240. See also Michael Collins, Liftoff: The Story of America's Adventure in Space (New York: Grove Press, 1988), 201; Edward C. Ezell, "The Apollo Program: History Must Judge," in Richard P. Hallion and Tom D. Crouch, eds., Apollo: Ten Years Since Trancruilitv Base (Washington, D.C.: National Air and Space Museum, 1979), 28; Kerry M. Joels, "Apollo and the 'Two Cultures,'" in Apollo: Ten Years Since Tranouilitv Base, 49-55; Sylvia Doughty Fries, NASA Engineers and the Age of Apollo (Washington, D.C.: NASA, Scientific and Technical Information Program, 1992), 170; Hechler, The Endless Space Frontier, 184, 254; Roger E. Bilstein, Orders of Magnitude: A History of the NACA and NASA, 1915-1990 (Washington, D.C.: NASA, Office of Management, Scientific and Technical

135 Information Division, 1989), 91; Christopher G. Kraft, Jr., "Introduction," Space Technology to Benefit Man: AlAA Student Journal. 10 {February 1972), 2; W. Henry Lambright, Powering Apollo: James E. Webb of NASA (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995), x, 140-141; Anderson, Orders of Magnitude, 71.

63.Harry Hurt, 111, For All Mankind (New York: The Atlantic Monthly Press, 1988), xii, 201. See also Lambright, Powering Apollo. 140-141.

64.Hurt, For All Mankind. 273; Ezell, "The Apollo Program: History Must Judge," in Hallion and Crouch, eds., Apollo. 28.

65.Statement by NASA Deputy Administrator Hugh Dryden in article by Robert Hotz, "Another Apollo Epic," Aviation Week and Space Technology. May 1, 1972, 118; Thomas P. Stafford, "Science, Society, and the Space Program, " Space Technology to Benefit Man: AlAA Student Journal. 10 (February 1972), 5; T. Keith Glennan, address to the Worcester Economic Club, Worcester, MA, February 15, 1960, NASA News Release no. 60-123, NHRC, News Releases.

136 CHAPTER 3

BALANCING SPACE AND THE BUDGET: PRESIDENTIAL

RHETORIC AND THE SPACE FRONTIER

NASA was one source of information about the

American space program, but presidents also influenced

the nation's space plans and created rhetoric to

describe those goals. As a key figure in the creation

of space policy, the president influenced not only the

way in which NASA administrators referred to their mission, but also the manner in which other Americans,

from Congressmen to journalists and the general

public, perceived space exploration. Presidents

brought their own historical assumptions to their

office, which also clearly influenced the way they viewed space. As a result, their views of the

American space program were varied, and they prioritized space differently. With Dwight D.

Eisenhower as the only exception, presidents had one

common aspect in their discussions of space

137 exploration: the connection of space to the nation's

frontier past. The nation's goals varied through the

decades, space competition with the Soviet Union

declined and eventually disappeared altogether, and

NASA's popularity fluctuated; despite these changes,

both presidents and NASA continued to use frontier

rhetoric.

Eisenhower as Space Scrooge: His Lack of Frontier

Eisenhower holds a unique place in American

history as the first president of the space age. He

could not benefit from his predecessors ' wisdom;

instead, he created a new space policy for the United

States where none had previously existed. Eisenhower wanted to respond to Russian space exploits in a measured, responsible fashion. Sputnik surprised many

Americans, including politicians, but Eisenhower was

convinced that the American space program should not merely react to the Russians. The United States

should not "race" along to the next spectacular space

138 feat rather than focusing on sound engineering and science.

Long before the Soviet Union launched Sputnik on

October 4, 1957, the United States had begun its own space program. Policymakers realized that the same rockets that launched satellites into orbit could also launch nuclear missiles at enemy targets. The United

States could not allow the Soviets to gain superiority in rocket technology, as such a course would have serious consequences, including Soviet victory in a nuclear war. After World War II, the United States had imported German rocket scientists, led by Wernher von Braun, to "jump-start" the American rocket program. In spite of the many problems associated with the military-oriented rocket program, by 1957 the

United States was close to orbiting a satellite of its own. Many Americans were just shocked that the Soviet

Union was able to accomplish the task first.^

The American media responded immediately to the news of Sputnik, creating a sense of emergency for the space program. Many journalists, and consequently many of their readers, viewed the Soviet launch as a crisis that the United States must answer quickly and

139 emphatically. They pressured Eisenhower to respond to the Soviet threat with spectacular American accomplishments, thereby proving that the democratic capitalist system was not inferior to the Communists.

The president refused to respond in this manner, however, and insisted instead that the United States was not involved in a "space race. " According to

Eisenhower, the United States should proceed in a measured, organized fashion rather than developing a crash program designed to "beat" the Soviets. He conceded that a successful space program could promote prestige and international standing, but he also believed that these results could be accomplished through the current program that concentrated on strong scientific and engineering goals rather than flashy technological marvels. Eisenhower admitted that Sputnik exposed a weakness in the American educational system, especially in science and mathematics, but believed that the open process of

American experiments, as opposed to the secretive manner of the Soviet rocket program, would prove

American superiority in the long term.^

140 Throughout the remainder of his presidency,

Eisenhower resisted pressure from the media and

Congress to drastically increase the space budget as a means of counteracting the Soviet threat. Unlike presidents who followed him, Eisenhower did not refer to space exploration as a "frontier." He unwillingly acknowledged that space advancements had a psychological impact on the American people. He even went so far as to call space an "adventure" in his preface to Introduction to Outer Space. But at the same time he was unwilling to be emotional in his depictions of the space program. Viewed by his critics as uninspiring and too conservative,

Eisenhower spent the rest of his term concerned that the uproar over Sputnik would tarnish his presidential legacy. Having reduced the federal budget for several years, he worried that a drastic increase in the space program might create a new deficit. He supported current satellite and missile programs but did not champion more ambitious proposals to put Americans in space.^

Although skeptical about the need for a crash program in space, Eisenhower created the President's

141 Science Advisory Committee (PSAC) to make recommendations about space policy. Like Eisenhower,

PSAC opposed a massive program to beat the Russians in a "space race," focusing instead on long-term space goals and the creation of a civilian space agency.

The committee authored Introduction to Outer Space, recognizing four major purposes of the American space program: curiosity, defense, prestige, and scientific knowledge. While PSAC did not employ frontier language in discussions of space exploration, it presented themes that were later incorporated into discourses about the space frontier, especially the ideas of curiosity and national prestige. The administration disseminated Introduction to Outer

Space throughout the nation, influencing many

Americans' feelings about space exploration. PSAC also supported the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 and the subsequent creation of NASA. Both

Eisenhower and PSAC members believed that a civilian space agency might make the American program seem less like a competition with the Soviet Union.'*

Concerned that an expanded space program would prove increasingly expensive over time, Eisenhower

142 asked PSAC in May 1960 to study the feasibility and

cost of a moon landing program. The president

received the final report on December 20, 1960, only

a short time before he left the White House. Dnlike

Eisenhower, committee members were enthusiastic about

NASA's plans for the Apollo program, and for the first

time, referring to the "conquest of outer space," used

frontier imagery. They described one motivation for

space exploration as "the challenge to transport man

beyond frontiers he scarcely dared dream about until

now." In spite of PSAC's increasing excitement about

the potential of manned space exploration, Eisenhower

still focused on the cost of such a venture. He

reportedly declared that he was unwilling to "hock his

jewels" to send a man to the moon, a reference to the manner in which Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain

financed Christopher Columbus's first voyage to the

New World. Eisenhower was determined to concentrate

on the practical aspects of space exploration rather

than theoretical dreams about its larger meaning.®

Eisenhower may have been reluctant to over­

emphasize the importance of space exploration in his

final years in office, but more and more Americans

143 enthusiastically supported space. By the end of his

presidency, even his own advisors advocated a more

vigorous program than Eisenhower desired. Although

the president saw the value of a strong space effort,

he continued to downplay the role of Cold War

competition, even as presidential candidate John F.

Kennedy criticized Eisenhower for not doing enough to

develop a national space program. Soon, however, it would be Eisenhower's turn to criticize what he viewed

as Kennedy's lavish overspending on space, particularly the Apollo program, in the 1960s.®

Kennedy as Prophet and Hero: Establishing the Frontier

Metaphor for Space

In stark contrast to Eisenhower's discussions of

space in the late 1950s, Kennedy utilized exciting

language to describe the American space program, both during the 1960 campaign and throughout his presidency. Kennedy referred to his presidential agenda as the "New Frontier," vowing to challenge the frontier not only in space exploration, but also in economic and social arenas as well. Nonetheless, his

144 rhetoric seemed to fit space best, and it is in

reference to the space program that his frontier

language remained the most constant.?

Kennedy's discussions of the space frontier began during his campaign for the presidency in 1961. He

focused mostly on the perceived missile gap with the

Soviet Union, blaming Eisenhower for the nation's supposed backwardness, and thus Richard Nixon, as

Eisenhower's Vice President, by association. At the

same time, Kennedy commented on space in a number of public speeches, always in the context of space exploration's role in strengthening the United States, as past frontiers had done. Accepting the Democratic party's nomination for the presidency, Kennedy declared; "The New Frontier is here, whether we seek it or not. Beyond that frontier are uncharted areas of science and space." Kennedy's main space goal was to beat the Soviet Union, a defense policy as much as a space policy. Nevertheless, he still could claim,

"This is the new age of exploration; space is our great New Frontier."®

To create a sound basis for his space policy,

Kennedy established the Ad Hoc Committee on Space to

145 make policy recommendations. The committee finished and released its study, known as the Wiesner Report, in January 1961. Although committee members stressed the strategic importance of the American rocket program, warning that the United States must not fall behind the Soviet Union in missile launch capability, they also recognized the significant psychological impact of putting Americans in space. Most Americans no longer found missile technology exciting, according to the committee, but the idea of human space exploration stimulated the imagination. The Wiesner

Report did not specifically utilize the word

"frontier" to describe the nation's efforts in space, but it did make subtle references to frontier themes.

The report described, Americans' "enormous curiosity" and their "compelling urge to go where no one has ever been before." It also referred to the history of exploration, indicating that man was "compelled" to explore space "by the same motives that have compelled him to travel to the poles and to climb the highest mountains of the earth." The report cautioned that too great a focus on manned missions might lead to disappointment if there were failures, but success in

146 space exploration could strengthen United States credibility in the eyes of the world.®

Kennedy paid attention to the Wiesner Report's recommendations, especially concerned with the potential for disaster in the manned space effort. By the time that Kennedy became president, NASA's Mercury program, the first step of putting Americans in space, was already in the final stages of development.

Rather than advocating a bold, imaginative space program for the 1960s, in the early months of his presidency Kennedy minimized the importance of manned space flight, fearing that a disaster would be a public relations nightmare for the United States.

Failure could damage the nation's prestige even more than Sputnik already had.^°

The president was not passive about space exploration for long, with a number of issues causing his change in attitude. First, the Wiesner Report was not that inspiring to Kennedy, who had framed his presidential agenda in terms of a "New Frontier."

When James Webb was appointed as NASA's new administrator in February 1961, that agency began pressing for a more vigorous manned space program, and

147 particularly for i^ollo— the lunar landing plan previously rejected by Eisenhower. Beyond NASA's pressure, Kennedy also faced a number of domestic and foreign policy motivations to expand the span of the

United States space program. Americans had hoped to put the first man in space, but with Soviet Yuri

Gagarin's successful orbit of the Earth on April 12,

1961, this dream had ended. The United States had to create a space goal that it could achieve in spectacular fashion, ahead of the Soviet Union, and a moon landing fulfilled that requirement. Kennedy had also been embarrassed by the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and an exciting space goal might help improve both his own and the nation's reputation. Kennedy asked Vice

President Lyndon B. Johnson, as chairman of the

National Space Council, to study the potential of a moon landing. Johnson's report enthusiastically endorsed the lunar plan and encouraged Kennedy to publicly support Apollo. All of these factors contributed to Kennedy's decision, announced in his

"Urgent National Needs" speech to Congress, to proceed with the Apollo program and put an American on the moon by the end of the decade.

148 Kennedy's speech to Congress on May 25, 1961, set

a tone for the nation's space efforts, a tone infused

with the frontier analogy. With his usual rhetorical

skill, Kennedy claimed that "this new frontier of

human adventure" would help the United States "win the

battle for men's minds." Space was one area where the

United States must be a leader, if the "free world"

was to survive against communist oppression. Kennedy

believed that American leadership in space was "in many ways.. . the key to our future on earth. " He

desired a lunar landing by the end of the decade

because its inherent difficulty would showcase the

best that the nation had to offer.

The National Aeronautics and Space Council (NASC),

serving in an advisory capacity to the administration,

also utilized frontier language in descriptions of the

space program. Two men were especially influential:

Vice President Johnson, the chairman of the council,

and Dr. Edward C. Welsh, the council's Executive

Secretary. During the Eisenhower years, the NASC had been conservative in its recommendations, but once

Johnson became chairman the council advocated a more

expansive plan, including a lunar landing. Welsh

149 generally served as spokesman for the NASC, travelling

around the country and giving speeches to a variety of

audiences. He was viewed as an expert on the space

program, not only by journalists and the general

public, but also by the Congressional committees that

he often testified before. The council advised the

president on space issues, but also saw its purpose as

"informing and educating the public on the Nation's

space and aeronautical programs.

Welsh often used frontier analogies in his

discussions of the American space program, claiming

that space exploration was "an essential and dynamic

feature of our economy" that "strengthens the nation,

both at home and abroad." While the Apollo program was "challenging" for the United States, it also had

a larger significance, because "throughout history,

our progress has been synonymous with our ability and

initiative to bend the great forces of nature to our

use." According to Welsh, the costs of the space program would be repaid with the many economic, political, and social benefits. He believed that one of the most important effects of the space program would be philosophical, inspiring "those who believe

150 in the future of their country" through "a renaissance of the spirit of '76^ the Declaration of Independence, and the westward movement." NASA paid close attention to Welsh's descriptions of the space program, circulating his speeches throughout the agency as part of the Public Affairs Office's Comment on the National

Space Program.

Kennedy continued to use frontier language in his discussions of the American space program throughout his presidency, influencing the way in which NASA, the

Congress, and the public viewed space exploration.

Like NASA administrators, Kennedy incorporated specific words into his descriptions that brought to mind the nation's frontier past, such as "adventure,"

"challenge," and "conquest." These common words showed a similar understanding of what the frontier experience had been like for modern-day Americans ' forefathers. Kennedy described the Apollo program as

"the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure" ever attempted, but a "challenge" that the

United States was "willing to accept,... and one which we intend to win. The idea of Americans' conquest of space was also common in Kennedy's descriptions,

151 including words such, as "mastery" and "dominance". He

viewed the future success of the lunar program as the

ultimate symbol of United States' "mastery of space"

or "dominance of this new sea, " a way of showing that

the United States was not only the preeminent space

power, but also superior in all aspects of its

economics, society, and political system.^®

Kennedy often placed the space frontier in the

context of United States history. Only one day after

his "Urgent National Needs" speech, the president

spoke to the Conference on Peaceful Uses of Space,

stating that "this nation will continue to be a

pioneer in the new frontier of space." On another

occasion, Kennedy claimed that the use of the word

"frontier" to describe the American space program

referred to "this Nation's place in history, to the

fact that we do stand on the edge of a great new era, with both crisis and opportunity, an era to be

characterized by achievement and by challenge." He

issued the call for all "pathfinders" and "pioneers"

to help the United States to achieve its monumental goals.

152 Kennedy also saw the space frontier in a similar way to Frederick Jackson Turner's view of the

nineteenth century continental frontier. He believed

that space exploration would strengthen the United

States in a variety of ways. The Apollo program was

not just an attempt to beat the Soviet Union in a race to the moon, even though that goal was important; the

United States would also "extract from it the wealth of benefits it holds for this country's freedom, economy, professions, education and standard of

living." Reporting to Congress on the nation's space activities for 1962, Kennedy explained that as the

United States achieved more success in space, "the benefits of our peaceful space program, in both its civilian and military aspects, are becoming increasingly evident." In particular, he stressed space exploration's impact on the nation's prestige and economy.^®

One way that Kennedy influenced discussions of the

American space program was through his use of words such as "spacefaring, " comparing space to a "sea" or

"ocean." The president's rhetoric had a strong influence on NASA, which often chose to utilize

153 similar language. Kennedy first mentioned the United

States as a spacefaring nation in his "Urgent National

Needs" speech, but continued to describe the American effort in space in similar ways throughout his presidency. This language brought to mind the history of the nation's founding, when Europeans sailed across the Atlantic Ocean to the New World. Once again,

Kennedy connected space to the nation ' s need to be an example to the rest of the world. The moon landing symbolized how the United States "as the leader of the free world [could] be second to none in a vital sea and ocean." He explained the American mission in space by claiming that "We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won." The United States could not reject its past by not exploring space, or "sailing" on the new "ocean.

John F. Kennedy was the first president to utilize frontier rhetoric to describe the American space program and his advocacy garnered public and

Congressional support for space exploration, particularly the Apollo program. NASA followed his example, adopting his terminology and incorporating it

154 into its own assumptions about how the nation *s past related to the agency's mission. With Kennedy's authority, others in his administration also spoke about the nation's space program, often using frontier language. Although he made space a national priority in May 1961, Kennedy did not focus the majority of his attention on NASA. As president, he had many other concerns and he had entered office with a large agenda to accomplish. But by choosing to describe space in a way that captured Americans ' imagination, he provided a strong boost for NASA. NASA employees long viewed him as a hero for his role in validating the

Apollo program, although Lyndon Johnson actually had the longest record for space support.

Johnson, the Space Frontier, and Vietnam

Lyndon Johnson had a long and consistent record regarding space exploration, stretching back to his tenure as Senator and Chairman of the Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences in the 1950s. His views on the American space program developed long before he became president and were politically

155 motivated. He took a stand in favor of a vigorous space program in the late 1950s, carried that conviction to the vice presidency in the early 1960s and, after Kennedy's assassination in November 1963, into the presidency as well. Once president, Johnson found it difficult to juggle the many claims on his attention and the country's annual budget. Although his enthusiasm for the nation's space ventures never wavered, his support for NASA's funding gradually declined as Vietnam and Great Society programs demanded larger shares of the national budget.

Johnson's zeal for space in the late 1950s and early

1960s had lent strength to NASA's mission, but his preoccupation with domestic and international events hurt the agency in the long term.

By the late 1950s, Johnson was one of the most powerful men in Washington, leader of the Senate

Democrats and an outspoken critic of Eisenhower.

After the Soviet achievement with Sputnik in October

1957 and the subsequent launch of Sputnik II the following month, Johnson had an issue with which to attack Eisenhower— the "missile gap." Although he had a deep interest in the exploration of space, Johnson

156 also recognized the potential of the missile issue as a weapon to be used against political adversaries. He convened hearings to study the missile gap and make recommendations to Congress about the future space program. This investigation gave him national prominence and probably helped him to be chosen as

Kennedy's running mate in 1960. Johnson was instrumental in the passage of the Space Act of 1958, pushing for the creation of a civilian space agency and the National Aeronautics and Space Council (NASC) to advise the president on scientific matters. He later referred to this legislation as his greatest accomplishment as a senator. Thus, while in the

Senate, Johnson helped to lay the foundation of the

American space program that would further develop in the 1960s and beyond.

Johnson's early space rhetoric was framed in the context of the Cold War. In the late 1950s, he almost always referred to space exploration as a "race" with the Soviet Union, one that the United States, as leader of the free world, could not afford to lose.

Johnson's convictions about the importance of space were firmly established by the time that he became

157 Kennedy's running mate in 1960, but Kennedy's "New

Frontier" platform affected his rhetoric. As Vice

President, Johnson increasingly incorporated frontier

language into speeches and writings, until the

frontier became an additional justification for the

space program.

Kennedy made Johnson responsible for developing

the administration's space policy in early 1961,

naming the vice president chairman of the NASC and

directing NASA and all other relevant government

agencies to cooperate with him. Johnson envisioned a

broader national space program than Eisenhower,

pushing for a lunar landing goal even more strongly

than NASA administrator James Webb did at first. In

May 1961, Johnson and other members of the NASC met

with Senator Robert Kerr (D-OK) and Senator Styles

Bridges (R-NH), the top ranking members of the Senate

space committee. The meeting's goal was to persuade

the senators to support a more active space program,

even before Kennedy had announced the moon landing

goal. Frontier language became part of the

justification for the moon landing from the beginning.

Webb explained the importance of the U.S. space

158 proposal to the senators by declaring that "this is really a new frontier.” The NASC and Johnson persuaded the president to make space a national priority in his "Urgent National Needs" speech later in the month.

Johnson became one of the administration's most vocal spokesmen on space exploration in the following years, speaking to many audiences about the nation's motivations. The importance of the frontier remained a common theme throughout his speeches and writings.

NASA carefully followed Johnson's discussions of space, often incorporating his speeches into the agency's own resources. For the fifth anniversary of satellite tracking on January 31, 1963, Johnson made a statement that encompassed many aspects of the frontier myth, as it related to United States space exploration. He described the "urgent sense of mission" that the nation had felt in the late 1950s, arguing that Americans should still have that feeling.

Johnson also referred to the United States' historical basis for exploration, explaining that "throughout our history, it has been the goal of peace and liberty that has led Americans to explore the dimensions of

159 challenging frontiers. Our goal now remains unchanged." In his address^ the vice president also incorporated other frontier depictions, referring to

"conquering" space and the "challenges inherent in the new frontiers of space." NASA issued Johnson's speech as a press release the same day, allowing his words to speak for the agency.

In one of the last space speeches Johnson made as vice president, he carried the frontier metaphor even further. In this address, given on November 14, 1963,

Johnson described space as "mankind's last and greatest frontier." He connected present space ventures with the nation's frontier legacy, explaining that "if there has been a single characteristic responsible for our success over the past two hundred years, it has been the characteristic American confidence in the future." He argued that such confidence had led Europeans to colonize the New World and encouraged Americans to settle the West. He concluded with the statement that the United States was determined "to realize the potential of the space frontier." NASA paid close attention to the text of

Johnson's speech. Not only was it excerpted in

160 Comment on the National Space P£ggr:amr for distribution throughout the agency; it was also quoted in the Goddard News for NASA employees to read. Both sources concentrated specifically on the country's historical imperative for space exploration.^'

Probably the best example of Johnson's space rhetoric is an article he wrote for Aerospace magazine in September 1963, titled, "Why Go to the Moon?" Many aspects of the frontier myth were present in this article. One theme was the similarities between the space program and Columbus ' s discovery of the New

World, accented by an illustration of fifteenth century European ships. At the same time, Johnson claimed that "there are many features of the space program which raise it about the level of that historic feat of the fifteenth century." The American space program, according to the vice president, was a

"challenge" to the nation's "courage," a "test, in a sense of our way of life— a test of our confidence in our country." By accepting the challenge of the lunar landing goal, the United States had been strengthened, not only in terms of international prestige, but also as a result of the benefits coming from the space

161 program. Exploration, of the space frontier had

resulted in an improved economy, education, and many

new products and industrial processes. Johnson saw a

direct relationship between space and the nation's

general health. Foreshadowing his later dilemma as president, he answered critics of the space program in

1963 by arguing that while more money should be spent

on education and other social programs, the money

spent on the space program was also "essential" for

the nation to continue to grow.^^

After Kennedy's assassination on November 22,

1963, Johnson continued to be interested in the space

program but faced many other demands as well. Johnson proceeded with Kennedy's legacy on many frontiers,

including civil rights and the moon landing program, but he also wanted to pursue his own agenda. In spite of other issues needing Johnson's attention, he remained an advocate of the space program and spoke a number of times about its importance to the nation.

Once again, the frontier was an important metaphor for space exploration in Johnson's speeches and writings, showing both Kennedy's and NASA's impact on his terminology.

162 Johnson's frontier rhetoric influenced many of his audiences. In his annual reports to Congress on space activities for 1964 and 1965, Johnson employed the

frontier analogy. In the 1964 report, the president described the space program as "our determined national undertaking in exploring the frontiers of space," while the 1965 report referred to space as a

"challenge" for the United States, in both its government and industry. His words also influenced other audiences. NASA discussed the 1964 report in its Historical Sketch of NASA, quoting Johnson's words exactly, and the Air Force utilized the 1965 report to justify its role in the space program.^"'

Johnson also spoke directly to NASA about the space program, often referring to the role of space as the nation's new frontier. At a visit to NASA's headquarters in February 1965, Johnson explained that

"The frontier of space is a frontier that we believe all mankind can and should explore." The purpose of the space program was to "build for our future."

Speaking to NASA again in December 1967, the president described how the Apollo program worked to "enrich our lives, improve our economy, and add to our strength."

163 His words echoed Turner^s depiction of the contribution of the frontier to American society. In his conclusion, the president described Americans as

"the descendants of those voyagers who found and settled the new world" and "the space pioneers who lead the way to the stars," refusing to abandon the

"frontiers of space.

Johnson's vice president, Hubert H. Humphrey, became one of the leading space spokesmen for the administration, as chairman of the NASC. Just as

Kennedy had connected space exploration to his domestic agenda, calling his presidential platform the

"New Frontier," Humphrey related the Apollo program to

Johnson's Great Society, claiming that "the Great

Society requires... an urgent quest for excellence, for

intellectual attainment, for crossing new frontiers in science and technology." There was a direct link between space and the nation's future greatness.

Humphrey felt that the national character of the

United States made the Americans a "curious people" who were "filled with inquisitiveness" and a "spirit of adventure," natural leaders in space exploration.”

164 In spite of Johnson's continued interest in space

exploration throughout his presidency, other concerns

demanded most of his attention. His vision of the

Great Society theoretically included Apollo, utilizing

technology to solve the nation's social and economic

problems, but in reality those programs competed with

NASA for funding. Political reality made it difficult

for Johnson to support NASA entirely when there were

other important priorities. Even more significantly,

the Vietnam War placed constraints upon many other

aspects of the national budget, both during and after

Johnson's years as president. Even though he spoke

enthusiastically about the benefits of space, using

frontier analogies to stress its importance to the

nation, Johnson's verbal support did not translate

into financial support. There was enough money for

Apollo, but no one, including Johnson, was certain

about exploring any other aspects of the space

frontier in the f u t u r e .

165 Mixon's Interest in the Space Frontier

Nixon became president just as the United States

entered the most exciting phase of the national space program— the moon landings - Although Nixon had served as vice president under Eisenhower in the 1950s, he did not have a major record on space exploration,

either for or against, prior to becoming president.

Nixon inherited the Apollo program from the Kennedy

and Johnson administrations, but he also inherited many other domestic and foreign policies, including

the Vietnam War and the Great Society. He had to balance the many demands on the nation's resources in a way most beneficial for the country. In spite of budget constraints, Nixon developed a fascination with

the space program. He often used frontier imagery to describe the space program, even as he looked beyond

Apollo to NASA's future goals. At the same time, he utilized language that routinized space travel and detracted from the excitement of "frontier" exploration.

Just as Kennedy had established a committee to advise him on space matters when he became president,

166 Nixon also created a transition team to advise his

administration, the Task Force on Space. Led by Dr.

Charles Townes, the Task Force presented a report to

the administration in January 1969. At various

points. The Townes Committee described the national

space program as "challenging," "exciting," and

"appealing." The report's authors declared that one

important aspect of the space program was that

Americans' "exploration of the moon and planets...

represent one of the most exciting and appealing

frontiers for human exploration of all time." The

committee members pointed to the very real effect that

success in space had on Americans' attitudes toward

the United States and acknowledged that space benefitted the U.S. economy, making the nation more competitive in the world. Its members believed that the space program could "provide an important domestic

focus of national purpose and pride, a unifying and

inspirational force of some consequence in the midst of difficult and divisive social problems"— a safety valve of sorts, in line with Turner's thesis. The

Space Task Force concentrated mostly on Apollo and

167 other current NASA programs but recommended more study of future programs.

Nixon asked the Task Group to develop recommendations for the future of the American space program in early 1969. In the report, published in

September, the committee declared that "we see a major role for this Nation in proceeding from the initial opening of this frontier to its exploitation for the benefit of mankind." The committee advocated the maintenance of an active space program in the wake of the first moon landing. Just as one step in

"conquering" the nineteenth-century frontier was exploitation— mining for gold or other minerals, logging, establishing settlements, etc.— the new space frontier also called for exploitation. Once again, the "challenge" of space exploration was a common theme in this report as well as the transition team's report. The committee believed that an important aspect of any future program was that "it should be challenging both for man's spirit of adventure and of exploration and for man's technological capability."

The Task Group argued that it was essential for the

168 United States to create new manned programs to target first Mars and other planets of the solar system.

With these two reports to guide him and the rhetorical precedents set by Kennedy and Johnson, it is not surprising that Nixon often used frontier language in discussions of the American space program.

While campaigning for the presidency in 1968, Nixon was already showing the impact that others' frontier rhetoric had on him, declaring in reference to the

American space program that "only by breaking through the frontiers of the known can we find and conquer the exciting new frontiers of the unknown." This rhetoric was even more common once Nixon became president.^"

Nixon's discussions of space followed similar patterns to NASA's frontier discourse. The same words appeared in descriptions of the American space program, such as "adventure," "curiosity," "courage," and "destiny." In describing the exploits of the

Apollo astronauts, Nixon referred to their "courage and determination," and to how Americans' "curiosity and... courage [drew] men beyond gravity, beyond his fears, into his dreams and on to his destiny." Nixon also called the space program an "adventure," made

169 special because all Americans could experience exploration of the space frontier vicariously through television.^®

Nixon recognized the historical connection between space and past American frontiers. Looking back at the nation's many space accomplishments, Nixon explained the need to explore space as "a pioneering instinct," inferring that it was a national tradition.

Reporting to Congress on the nation's foreign policy in 1971, Nixon described the American motivation to explore space as "a measure of an older American tradition, the compulsion to cross the next mountain chain, " with American astronauts "the most recent of a long line of American pioneers. " He also compared spacesuits to the buckskins worn by earlier frontier explorers. The president related the success of the space program to the potential of the United States to be a great nation, arguing after Apollo 17 that "there was a heritage of meeting historical challenge— the challenge of greatness— to be sustained.

Like NASA, Nixon compared the American space program to Columbus's discovery of the New World.

Congratulating Robert Gilruth on the success of Apollo

170 8 in December 1968, Nixon claimed that NASA had

"demonstrated to all skeptics on this earth that throughout peaceful space exploration there are still new worlds to conquer." While campaigning for the presidency, Nixon had utilized the Columbus analogy to justify spending on the space program, arguing that while at present it was difficult to see all of the benefits, in the long term results would provide vindication for the space budget. As during

Columbus's lifetime, it was impossible for the United

States to know the multitude of benefits that would come from Apollo. In Nixon's opinion, history would determine that exploration of space had been more important, with greater results, than all of the discoveries of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.

As president at the culmination of the Apollo program, Nixon faced a unique challenge. The moon landing had motivated the United States throughout the

1960s, but the nation had not selected a new goal.

After much study by the Space Task Group, NASA, and others, Nixon's administration chose the space shuttle as the future of the national space program, along with unmanned space probes. For the present, the

171 United States would not colonize the moon or land astronauts on Mars. Insteady the reusable space shuttle would be the cornerstone of the civilian space program, which Nixon described as "designed to help transform the space frontier of the 1970s into familiar territory." The space shuttle appealed to those who wanted a space progreim but were concerned with cutting costs. However practical Nixon's decision to pursue the space shuttle option was, it was not as rhetorically inspiring as adventures into unknown territoiry. When Nixon declared that the nation's "approach to space must continue to be bold— but it must also be balanced, " it failed to excite

Americans ' imaginations in the same way that Apollo had the preceding decade. By making space exploration routine, even ordinary, Nixon and other advocates of this course kept the frontier analogy from fitting space exploration as well as it had in the past.

After all, once Americans had thoroughly explored a region, it could no longer be called a frontier.^®

Similar to Johnson, Nixon showed enthusiasm for the space program but also faced many constraints. No matter how appealing the Apollo program was, budget

172 constraints forced Nixon's administration to carefully evaluate NASA's future. Nixon found proposals for more extensive lunar exploration and manned missions to Mars exciting, but in the end the cost of such grand ventures made him select a more practical alternative. The space shuttle was the final choice, less expensive because of its reusable features, and with obvious practical benefits as a main object of the shuttle was to study the Earth. By choosing the practical option over the more symbolic one, however,

Nixon ensured that the space program of the late 1970s and beyond would not appeal as much to Americans ' imaginations, especially in frontier terms.

The 1970s and Bevond: In Search of Inspiration

With Nixon's resignation in 1974 and limited budgetary support for the future of the space program,

NASA was left to wonder what kind of presidential support it would receive in the future. Indeed, throughout the remainder of the decade, that future did not seem inspiring. Gerald Ford had many serious concerns to deal with after suddenly becoming

173 president, including how to help the nation heal after

Watergate. Jimmy Carter's presidency had a greater

impact on the United States space program, although

not a positive one. Focusing mostly on reducing the

space budget to a "practical" level and making space

routine, his administration pushed the frontier

analogy to the fringe of discussions of space. Only

Ronald Reagan in the 1980s would return frontier

rhetoric to the forefront of space discourse.

While Ford did not concentrate often on the

importance of space, the United States bicentennial provided an irresistible opportunity to compare space

exploration and the nation's frontier past. At the dedication ceremonies for the new National Air and

Space Museum in July 1976, Ford claimed that "the

frontier shaped and molded our society and our people." Comparing astronauts to pilgrims,

frontiersmen, and pioneers, he argued that the

frontier "has left a permanent mark on the American character." The same month, proclaiming July 20,

1976, to be Space Exploration Day, Ford compared the modern and nineteenth-century frontiers, observing that "As we once set about to conquer the wilderness

174 and settle our continent, now we set out upon a

journey into the unknown of our universe." These

references still incorporated frontier rhetoric, but

the space program remained a low priority for the Ford

administration. 3*

Carter occasionally used frontier language as well, describing astronauts as "American pioneers of

the farthest and highest of all frontiers, the

frontiers of space." Speaking on the tenth anniversaxry of Apollo 11, Carter declared that "the pioneer spirit that built our great country is

symbolized by the footprints of American astronauts on

the bleak landscape of the moon." Although frontier

imagery was present in the president's discussions of the space program. Carter focused mostly on the practical and economic aspects of space, wanting space to be less expensive, more focused on tangible results, and more routine. The space shuttle was the cornerstone of such a program. Carter summed up his views in a speech at the Kennedy Space Center in

October 1978, stating that "the most exciting thing about the space shuttle is that it will make our use of space routine.

175 At a time when presidential space rhetoric seemed uninspired, NASA welcomed Ronald Reagan's election.

Reagan excelled at creating visionary language that made the nation confident again. The frontier was an essential part of presidential discussions of space.

Reagan argued that the United States needed to revitalize the space program, choosing new goals that would motivate Americans to once again be trailblazers, "pushing back frontiers and opening new doors to discovery, opportunity, and progress." He viewed space exploration as essential to American identity, believing that "The challenge of pushing back frontiers is part of our national character.... Space, like freedom, is a limitless, never ending frontier on which our citizens can prove they are indeed Americans." Reagan also argued that

"our willingness to accept the challenge of space will reflect whether America's men and women today have the same bold vision, the same courage and indomitable spirit that made us a great Nation." Although he never gave NASA a new goal to achieve in line with

Project Apollo, nor a major increase in funding.

176 Reagan still revitalized NASA^s vision of its role in society with, his frontier rhetoric.

Conclusion

From the space program’s onset, presidents have had a major impact on how Americans have viewed space.

By their choice of words, presidents could make the space program seem like a competition with the Soviet

Union, an exciting adventure into a new frontier, or a routine process repeated again and again. At times, these themes could coincide, sending conflicting messages to their audiences. Beginning with

Eisenhower, presidents made decisions about the future of American space exploration with the assumption that the Soviets were also attempting large scale space goals, such as landing cosmonauts on the moon. With the United States and the Soviet Union entering a period of détente in the 1970s, symbolized by the cooperative Apollo-Soyuz mission in 1975, the Cold War was no longer a major factor in decision making.

Budget concerns forced presidents in the 1970s to support the space shuttle rather than a Mars

177 expedition, concentrating space resources back toward

Earth instead of reaching further into the unknown, making space routine. The one theme that remained throughout all presidential rhetoric in the space program, beginning with Kennedy, was the comparison of space to the nineteenth century frontier. Although some presidents utilized frontier language more than others in space discussions, it never disappeared altogether.

From Kennedy to Reagan, all of the presidents, as well as their administrations, understood the connection between the frontier and space. Their audiences also recognized the larger meaning of the frontier analogy. Americans had been taught that the frontier was a determining factor in the creation of the nation*s identity, strengthening the traditions of democracy and freedom and creating the political, economic, and social systems that had made the United

States a world leader. They looked to the exploration of the space frontier to help safeguard these important aspects of the American character, especially in an era when domestic and political events had the potential to tear the nation apart.

178 space accomplishments could remind Americans of the

qualities that made the country great, such as the

spirit of adventure, curiosity, bravery, and vision

for the future. Mo other program seemed to fulfill

these qualities as well as space exploration.

Why, if the frontier analogy had so much meaning

for American audiences, did presidents not utilize it more often? Unlike NASA, which has a single goal to accomplish, presidents balanced many different, often contradictory objectives. Space was one of a host of a variety of domestic and foreign policies that all competed for funding from Congress. Presidents prioritized space differently a various times, resulting in rhetorical changes to justify their positions. Eisenhower would not have described space as a frontier any more than he wanted the nation's space program put in the context of a "race" with the

Soviet Union— to do so would have created a massive space agenda that would have threatened his budget.

Since frontier language was exciting, Kennedy,

Johnson, and Nixon used it more to validate their space goals. Presidents in the 1970s chose to downplay the frontier element in their space

179 discussions, significantly reducing the money spent on

exploration, while Reagan focused the nation's attention once again on the space frontier as part of his larger rhetorical strategy to increase the nation's confidence. Although NASA could afford to employ frontier language to "sell" its programs, presidents often could not, as the national budget remained a central concern.

180 Endnotes

1.For a more detailed discussion of the American rocket program prior to 1957, see Walter A. McDougall, ...the Heavens and the Earth; A Political History of the Space Acre (New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1985); Robert A. Divine, The Sputnik Challenge (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993) .

2.McDougall, the Heavens and the Earth, 140- 148; Linda T. Kfrug, Presidential Perspectives on Space Exploration: Guiding Metaphors from Eisenhower to Bush (New York: Praeger, 1991), 24-26. See also Divine, The Sputnik Challenge; Dwight D. Eisenhower, "Science and Security No. 2," in The Challenge of the Sputniks, ed. Richard Witkin (n.p.: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1958), 36-42; Charles S. Maier, "Introduction," in George B. BCistiakowsky, A Scientist at the White House: The Private Diarv of President Eisenhower's Special Assistant for Science and Technology (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976), xxx-xxxi; Sherman Adams, Firsthand Report : The Storv of the Eisenhower Administration (New York: Harper and Row, 1961).

3.BCrug, Presidential Perspectives on Space Exploration. 24-30; James R. BCillian, Jr., Sputnik, Scientists, and Eisenhower: A Memoir of the First Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1977), 10; Dwight D. Eisenhower, "Statement by the President," in Introduction to Outer Space: An Explanatory Statement Prepared bv the President's Science Advisory Committee. The White House, March 26, 1958, in NHRC, White House, Dwight D. Eisenhower Files; McDougall, ...the Heavens and the Earth. 200.

4.McDougall, ...the Heavens and the Earth. 151, 201, 170-172; Introduction to Outer Space. 1-2, NHRC, White House, Eisenhower Files. See also Divine, The Sputnik Challenge. 100-101, 102-107.

5.President's Science Advisory Committee, "Report of the Ad Hoc Panel on Man-in-Space," December 20, 1960, in Logsdon, Exploring the

181 Unknown, vol. I, 408, 411. See also McDougall, ...the Heavens and the Earth, 225-226; Kistiakowsky, A Scientist at the White House. 409.

5.Presidential News Conference, April 3, 1963, in Kennedy and the Press: The News Conferences, ed. Harold W. Chase and Allen H. Lerman (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1965), 415-416.

7.For John F. Kennedy's complete agenda as president, see New Frontiers of the Kennedy Administration: The Texts of the Task Force Reports Prepared for the President (Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs Press, 1961).

8.John F . Kennedy, speech accepting the Democratic Presidential nomination, July 16, 1960, in Statements of John F. Kennedy on Space Exploration. 1952-1963. comp. Susan Miller, et.al. (Washington, D.C.: NASA Historical Office, Policy Planning Division, July 1964), NHRC, White House, Kennedy Files. (This source was an internal NASA publication, not publicly released.) Kennedy's references to a space race with the Soviet Union include Senator John F. Kennedy, news conference in Los Angeles, July 17, 1960, in Statements of John F. Kennedy on Space Exploration; Senator John F. Kennedy, speech at Veterans of Foreign Wars Convention in Detroit, Michigan, Aug. 27, 1960, in Statements of John F. Kennedy on Space Exploration. Reference to space as the "New Frontier" from Senator John F. Kennedy, "Reply to the Nine-Point Proposal on Space by the Editors of Missiles and Rockets." Sept. 27, 1960, in Statements of John F. Kennedy on Space Exploration. See also McDougall, ...the Heavens and the Earth. 218-219, 221-222.

9.Report to the President-Elect of the Ad Hoc Committee on Space [Wiesner Report], January 12, 1961, 2, 15-16, in NHRC, White House, Kennedy Files. For more discussion of the Wiesner Report's warning against the consequences of manned exploration failures, see McDougall, ...the Heavens and the Earth. 309-310.

182 10.McDougall, ...the Heavens and the Earth, 309- 310. Some journalists criticized Kennedy for not being as active on the space issue as his campaign rhetoric had been. See Presidential News Conference, April 21, 1961, in Kennedy and the Press, ed. Chase and Lerman, 67-68.

11.McDougall, ...the Heavens and the Earth. 310- 312, 315-320; John M. Logsdon, The Decision to Go to the Moon; Project Apollo and the National Interest (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1970), 109; Krug, Presidential Perspectives on Space Exploration. 30.

12.President John F. Kennedy, "Urgent National Needs," speech to a Joint Session of Congress, May 25, 1961 [reading text with. Kennedy's handwritten notes], 63-64, 68, 72-73, NHRC, White House, Kennedy Files.

13."National Aeronautics and Space Council History during the Administration of President Lyndon Baines Johnson (also as Vice President) January 1961-January 1969," 167, NHRC, White House, National Aeronautics and Space Council Files. For more discussion of NASC during the Eisenhower years, see Divine, The Sputnik Challenge. 147-148, 186-187, 190-191; Kistiakowsky, A Scientist at the White House. 46, 172.

14.Dr. Edward C. Welsh, Executive Secretary, National Space Council, "We Can Afford Space Program," speech before American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Dallas, Texas, April 24, 1963, NHRC, Comment on the National Space Program; Dr. Edward C. Welsh, "Space as Historical Imperative for U.S.," speech to Lafayette Alumni Association, Oct. 26, 1962, NHRC, Comment on the National Space Program; Dr. Edward C. Welsh, "Space: Progress and Posterity," address at the Robert H. Goddard Memorial Dinner, March 20, 1964, NHRC, Comment on the National Space Program.

15.Statement by John F. Kennedy on May 5, 1961, in Statements of John F. Kennedy on Space Exploration, comp. Miller, NHRC, White House, Kennedy Files; John F. Kennedy, remarks at Rice

183 University Stadium, Houston, Texas, Sept. 12, 1962, in NHRC, White House, Kennedy Files. For more analysis of John F. Kennedy's space rhetoric, see James L. Kauffman, Selling Outer Space: Kennedy, the Media, and Funding for Project Ap o IIo , 1961-1M.3 {Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 1994), especially 29, 30-34.

16.Kennedy, Rice University Stadium speech, Sept. 12, 1962, NHRC, White House, Kennedy Files; John F. Kennedy, Annual Budget Message to Congress, Jan. 18, 1962, in Statements of John F. Kennedy on Space Exploration, comp. Miller, NHRC, White House, Kennedy Files; John F. Kennedy, remarks to Major L. Gordon Cooper at White House Lawn Ceremony, May 22, 1963, in Statements of John F. Kennedy on Space Exploration.

17.John F. Kennedy, Telephone remarks to the Conference on Peaceful Uses of Space, Tulsa, OK, May 26, 1961, in Statements of John F. Kennedy on Space Exploration, comp. Miller, NHRC, White House, Kennedy Files; John F. Kennedy, Press Release from the Office of the White House Press Secretary, Remarks at Dedication Ceremonies, Aero-space Medical Health Center, Brooks Air Force Base, Texas, Nov. 21, 1963, NHRC, White House, Kennedy Files. See also President John F. Kennedy, Message to Congress on the State of the Union, Jan. 11, 1962, in Statements of John F. Kennedy on Space Exploration.

18.John F. Kennedy, Annual Report to Congress, Jan. 31, 1962, in Statements of John F. Kennedy on Space Exploration, comp. Miller, NHRC, White House, Kennedy Files; John F. Kennedy, letter transmitting the Report of U.S. Aeronautics and Space Activities- -1962, Jan. 28, 1963, NHRC, Office of Legislative Affairs, Legislative Activities Report. Jan. 28, 1963.

19.Kennedy, "Urgent National Needs" speech. May 25, 1961, NHRC, White House, Kennedy Files; John F. Kennedy, address at fundraising dinner in honor of Senator Smathers, Miami Beach, FL, March 10, 1962, in Statements of John F. Kennedy on Space Exploration, comp. Miller, NHRC, White House,

184 Kennedy Files; Kennedy, Rice University address, Sept. 12, 1962, NHRC, White House, Kennedy Files; John F. Kennedy, Statement on John Glenn's Flight, February 20, 1962, NHRC, Comment on the National Space Program. For more discussion of how NASA embraced the ocean analogy, see chapter 2, footnote 29.

20.Killian, Sputnik, Scientists, and Eisenhower, 9; Robert A. Divine, "Lyndon B. Johnson and the Politics of Space," in The Johnson Years, vol. 2, Vietnam, the Environment, and Science, ed. Robert A. Divine (Lawrence, KSt University Press of Kansas, 1987), 217-228; McDougall, ...the Heavens and the Earth. 152-155, 172-176; Richard M. Nixon, White House News Release, Statement on S.J. Res. 37, Feb. 19, 1973, NHRC, White House, Johnson Files. See also Lyndon B. Johnson, The Vantage Point: Perspectives of the Presidency. 1963-1969 (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971), 273-278; Ken Hechler, The Endless Space Frontier: A History of the House Committee on Science and Astronautics, 1959-1978, AAS History Series, Vol. 4 (San Diego: American Astronautical Society, 1982), 5— 6.

21.For more discussion of Lyndon B. Johnson's space rhetoric, see Krug, Presidential Perspectives on Space Exploration, 36-37, 39-41; Divine, "Lyndon B. Johnson and the Politics of Space," in The Johnson Years, ed. Divine, 223-225; McDougall, ...the Heavens and the Earth. 152-155.

22.Minutes from Vice President's Ad Hoc Meeting, May 3, 1961, in Logsdon, Exploring the Unknown, vol. I, 438. See also W. Henry Lamb right. Powering Apollo: James E. Webb of NASA (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995), 141. For Lyndon Johnson's view of his role in space while Vice President, see Johnson, The Vantage Point. 278-283.

23.Remarks by Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, delivered by Edward C. Welsh, Executive Secretary, National Aeronautics and Space Council, Fifth Anniversary of Tracking, Goddard Space Flight Center, January 31, 1963, NASA News Release, NHRC, White House, Johnson Files.

185 24.Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson,, speech at Space Center dedication, Los Angeles, California, Nov. 14, 1963, NHRC, White House, Johnson Files; Lyndon B. Johnson, "National Purpose in Space is Peace— Not Prestige," speech at Space Center Dedication, Los Angeles, California, Nov. 14, 1963, NHRC, Comment on the National Space Program; "Impetus," Goddard News. Jan. 27, 1964, NHRC, Center Newspapers.

25.Lyndon B. Johnson, "Why Go to the Moon?," Aerospace 1{September-October 1963), 6-10.

26.For more on Johnson's view of space exploration during his presidency, see Johnson, The Vantage Point. 283-286.

27.NASA Historical Staff, Historical Sketch of NASA (Washington, D.C.: NASA, 1965); Major General O.J. Ritland, Deputy Commander for Space, Air Force Systems Command, "Unmanned Space Flight and National Objectives," address at AIAA Unmanned Spacecraft Meeting, Los Angeles, CA, March 1, 1965, United States Air Force News Release, VA Tech, Evert B. Clark Papers, Box 3.

28.Lyndon B. Johnson, Remarks at the National Aeronautics and Space Agency, February 25, 1965, White House Release, NHRC, White House, Johnson Files; Lyndon B. Johnson, Remarks following his inspection of the NASA Michoud Assembly Facility, Louisiana, December 12, 1967, NHRC, White House, Johnson Files. Congress paid attention to this speech as well, with both Houses inserting it in the Congressional Record. See Extension of Remarks, Hon. F. Edward Hebert of Louisiana, Congressional Record. Appendix. Dec. 18, 1967, A6312; Congressional Record. Senate. Dec. 14, 1967, 18743- 18744.

29.Johnson, remarks at National Aeronautics and Space Agency, Feb. 25, 1965, NHRC, White House, Johnson Files; Hubert H. Humphrey, "Space Exploration: A Higher Vision," remarks at Collier Trophy presentation ceremony, reprinted by Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc., VA Tech,

186 Clark Papers, Box 1; Hubert H. Humphrey, speech at Robert H. Goddard Memorial Dinner, Washington, D.C., March 19, 1965, VA Tech, Clark Papers, Box 3. See also Hubert H. Humphrey to Robert H. Gilruth, Dec. 10, 1968, VA Tech, Robert R. Gilruth Papers, Box 1 (May 1994 accession).

30.For more discussion of the relationship of Vietnam and the Great Society to the American space program, see Bureau of the Budget, "National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Highlight Summary," Oct. 30, 1968, in Logsdon, Exploring the Unknown, Vol. I, 495-496; Divine, "Lyndon B. Johnson and the Politics of Space," in Divine, The Johnson Years, vol. 2, 217, 236-239; Krug, Presidential Perspectives on Space Exploration, 41-42; McDougall, the Heavens and the Earth, 420-422, 443; Lambright, Powering Apollo, 140-141.

31. Elichard Nixon himself called the first moon landing "the most exciting event of the first year of my presidency." See Richard M. Nixon, EIN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon (New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1978, 1990), 428, also 429-430.

32."Report of the Task Force on Space," Jan. 10, 1969, 1, 3, 5, 10-11, NHRC, White House, Nixon Files.

33.Space Task Group, "The Post-Apollo Program: Directions for the Future," report to the president, Sept. 1969, i, v, 10-11, NHRC, White House, Nixon Files. See also McDougall, ...the Heavens and the Earth, 421.

34.Richard Nixon, speech at Houston Space Center, Sept. 4, 1968, NHRC, White House, Nixon Files. See also Richard Nixon to Mr. James Murray, President, National Space Club, Western Union Telegram, Oct. 1, 1968, NHRC, White House, Nixon Files.

35.Richard Nixon, message to Capt. Alan B. Shepard, Jr., Comdr. Edgar D. Mitchell, and Ma j. Stuart A. Roosa on the eve of the Apollo 14 launch, Jan. 30, 1971, released Jan. 31, 1971, NHRC, White

187 House, Nixon Files; Richard Nixon, statement on the successful launch of the Apollo 15 spacecraft, July 26, 1971, NHRC, White House, Nixon Files; Richard Nixon, Proclamation 3919 Designating July 21, 1969, as a National Day of Participation [Apollo 11], July 16, 1969, NHRC, White House, Nixon Files.

36.Richard Nixon, remarks on Fifteenth. Anniversary of NASA, Oct. 4, 1973, NHRC, White House, Nixon Files; The President's Report to the Congress, "United States Foreign Policy for the 1970s: Building for Peace," Feb. 25, 1971, NHRC, White House, Nixon Files; "Nixon Statement on Apollo 17's Return," New York Times. Dec. 20, 1972. See also Richard Nixon, "Our National Security is Not Negotiable, " Remarks at Commencement Exercises at the Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, June 4, 1969, in Setting the Course: The First Year: Mai or Policy Statements bv President Richard Nixon (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, a division of Reader' Digest Books, Inc., 1970), 165-172; Krug, Presidential Perspectives on Space Exploration. 55.

37.Richard Nixon, Telegram to Robert R. Gilruth, Dec. 28, 1968, VA Tech, Gilruth Papers, Box 1; Richard Nixon, Speech at Houston Space Center, Sept. 4, 1968, NHRC, White House, Nixon Files; Nixon, remarks at dinner honoring Apollo 14 astronauts, NHRC, White House, Nixon Files; Richard Nixon, Statement following successful launching of Apollo 14, Jan. 31, 1971, NHRC, White House, Nixon Files. See also Krug, Presidential Perspectives on Space Exploration, 48-49, 52-53.

38.Richard Nixon, statement issued by the White House, Jan. 5, 1972, NHRC, White House, Nixon Files; Richard Nixon, statement issued by the White House, March 7, 1970, NHRC, White House, Nixon Files. See also Krug, Presidential Perspectives on Space Exploration, 48, 54-56.

39.Gerald R. Ford, remarks at the Dedication Ceremonies for the National Air and Space Museum, July 1, 1976, NHRC, White House, Gerald R. Ford Files; Gerald R. Ford, Proclamation declaring July 20, 1976, Space Exploration Day, July 19, 197 6,

188 NHRC, White House, Ford Files. Krug also has a brief discussion of Ford's rhetoric in Presidential Perspectives on Space Exploration, 57-59.

40.Jimmy Carter, speech at Kennedy Space Center, Oct. 1, 1978, NHRC, White House, Jimmy Carter Files; Jimmy Carter, remarks at ceremony in observance of the Tenth Anniversary of the First Moon Landing, July 20, 1979, NHRC, White House, Carter Files; Jimmy Carter, press conference, Oct. 13, 1979, NHRC, White House, Carter Files; Jimmy Carter, Statement on Ninth Anniversary of First Moon Landing, July 20, 1978, NHRC, White House, Carter Files; Carter, speech at Kennedy Space Center, Oct. 1, 1978. See also Krug, Presidential Perspectives on Space Exploration. 60-63, 94.

41.Ronald Reagan, Remarks at the 25th Anniversary Celebration of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Oct. 19, 1983, Public Papers of the Presidents(hereafter PPP), Ronald Reacran. 1983. vol. II (Washington, D.C. : U.S. Government Printing Office, 1984), 1481; Ronald Reagan, Remarks at White House Ceremony Marking the 15th Anniversary of the Apollo 11 Lunar Flight, July 20, 1984, PPP. Ronald Reaaan. 1984. vol. II (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1986), 1067; Ronald Reagan, Remarks at the National Space Club Luncheon, March 29, 1985, PPP. Ronald Reaaan. 1985. vol. I (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988), 365; Ronald Reagan, Commencement address at U.S. Air Force Academy, May 30, 1984, excerpted in NASA Public Affairs memo, June 7, 1984, NHRC, White House, Ronald Reagan Files. See also Krug, Presidential Perspectives on Space Exploration. 67-74, 78, 82-85. Ronald Reagan also incorporated frontier language into justifications for the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). See Edward Tabot Linenthal, Symbolic Defense: The Cultural Significance of the Strategic Defense Initiative (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1989), 45-46.

189 CHAPTER 4

CONGRESS AND SPACE EXPLORATION: POLITICAL REALITIES

COLLIDE WITH THE FRONTIER DREAM

As tiie guardian of the national budget, the United

States Congress has had a significant impact upon the

direction and scope of the American space program. At

the same time, a variety of people influenced the way

in which legislators thought about space. Often these

groups used frontier references in their discussions

of space exploration. NASA lobbied Congress,

consistently utilizing frontier rhetoric in an attempt

to gain maximum financial support for its missions.

Presidents incorporated frontier language into their

discussions of the national space program, once again

attempting to convince Congress of the validity of

space exploration and of NASA's budget. Journalists,

scientists, and industry experts also employed

frontier imagery to justify space exploration. Even many congressmen used frontier rhetoric at various

190 times to describe the nation's space policies, reflecting both other groups' influences and their own historical assumptions.

Americans' widespread use of frontier language, however, did not necessarily translate into more congressional support for NASA. Many issues demanded legislators* attention, and they had to prioritize the numerous foreign and domestic programs for which they were responsible. Congress viewed space exploration as an important national venture, especially in the late 1950s and early 1960s, when the Soviet Union seemed superior to the United States in space technology and motivation. The 1960s and 1970s proved to be a much more difficult climate for NASA's ambitious goals. As the Vietnam War and Great Society programs required increasing amounts of funding, some legislators targeted NASA's budget for reduction.

Increasingly, congressional space enthusiasts were in the minority, as critics wondered why so much money should be spent exploring the space frontier when so many problems needed to be solved back on Earth. The space program seemed frivolous in comparison with these other concerns. Legislators* constituents

191 reinforced these beliefs through letters and opinion polls, seemingly rejecting the frontier dream of space exploration. Even Americans' elation at the accomplishment of major space feats, such as the first moon landing, was not enough to overcome the larger trend of reducing MASA's budgets.

Congressional Enthusiasm and the Earlv Years Qf tiis.

American Space Program

Until the Soviet launch of Sputnik in 1957, space exploration was not a priority for Congress. Space interest before 1957 was primarily limited to funding for military rocket programs such as the Army Redstone and Navy Vanguard projects. This relative complacency ended with the Soviet Union's demonstration of rocket superiority. Sputnik jolted legislators who realized that rockets used to launch satellites were also capable of sending nuclear missiles to distant targets. Set in the context of the Cold War, legislators' main interest in supporting space research in the late 1950s was therefore a direct response to a perceived strategic threat. Under

192 Senator Lyndon B. Johnson's leadership. Congress made the space program a national priority, contradicting

President Eisenhower's desire to keep space exploration from becoming a "race” with the Soviet

Union.

In contrast with Eisenhower's conservative response to Sputnik, many legislators reacted with shock and indignation at the Soviet space achievement.

As a result, congressional leaders were often at odds with the president over the nation's space policy.

The president preached moderation in responding to the

Soviets, arguing that the United States should create a sound scientific and engineering program instead of attempting to out-race the Communists, but Congress pushed for a more pro-active approach to the problem.

Johnson, as Senate majority leader and chairman of the

Armed Services Committee, established hearings to study the disparity between the Soviet and American rocket programs. Two new permanent congressional committees eventually grew out of the Johnson hearings, the Senate Committee on Aeronautical and

Space Sciences and the House Committee on Science and

Astronautics. Both committees helped to develop the

193 nation's future space policy, writing the National

Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 that subsequently created NASA. ^

Although most early congressional space debates did not refer to the frontier elements of space exploration, these discussions did set the tone for later space/frontier analogies. As a formal declaration of United States space policy, the

National Aeronautics and Space Act helped to create a friendly climate for frontier rhetoric. In its

"Declaration of Policy and Purpose," the act asserted that space exploration improved both the nation's military security and "general welfare." The authors did not define what "general welfare" referred to, presumably this reference was to the program's impact on American political, economic, and social institutions. Legislators further developed the idea that space exploration influenced not only defense but also other aspects of national life in later portions of the act. Certainly the act's wording allowed for an expansion of space goals beyond strictly defined strategic purposes.^

194 By the end of the 1950s, legislators had set a tone for discussions of the national space program that encouraged frontier references. Several themes were present in congressional space discourse that also related to the American frontier. The National

Aeronautics and Space Act had introduced the connection between space and the nation's "general welfare, " making it only a small step for space advocates to claim Turnerian results from the space frontier. In a staff report by the Select Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration in 1959, congressional leaders referred to the "pioneering" work of early rocket scientists such as Dr. Robert

Goddard, whose experiments had created a sound basis for American space exploration. The study also stressed the influence of space on non-strategic aspects of American society, such as education.^

As congressional use of frontier language became more common in the early 1960s, controversy developed over funding for the space program. After President

John F. Kennedy committed the nation to putting an

American on the moon by the end of the decade, some congressmen began to question the usefulness of such

195 an expensive venture. Although there was still overwhelming support for the United States' space goals, the numbers were eroding. Some believed that support for the space program threatened their constituents' interests and even their own political positions. Within only a few short years, NASA's budget was in jeopardy, and even the Apollo program was scaled back. Why was it that just as space rhetoric became more dynamic and exciting, the actual financial support for NASA began to decline?

Influences on Congress: The Space Frontier's

Salespeople and Critics

A number of groups influenced congressional views of the American space program, both in positive and negative ways. NASA administrators and presidents tended to portray space exploration as advantageous, stressing the positive benefits of the space frontier for the nation's economy, society, and political structures. The frontier myth became a major part of these justifications for the space program. Other groups within American society were more ambiguous in

196 their messages about space. They, too, used frontier language when describing space but were divided about the extent to which taxpayers should fund the space program. Some journalists enthusiastically supported

NASA's missions, but others were much more critical.

Scientists and other experts also had conflicting views. The general public, too, was divided over the issue of space funding, with some Americans caught up in the excitement of the lunar program and others convinced that more "practical" earthly concerns should have first priority on the national budget.

NASA worked the hardest to influence congressional opinion. As the civilian agency entrusted with carrying out the national space program, NASA had the most to lose if congressional opinion turned against the space program. The agency used a variety of means to influence legislative opinion. Administrators appeared regularly before congressional committees regarding NASA's annual budget. Congressmen often inserted NASA officials' speeches into the

Congressional Record. Legislators were invited to tour NASA facilities and experience firsthand the excitement of launches. The agency made a wide

197 variety of materials available to Congress and

answered congressional requests for more information

through its Office of Legislative Affairs. This

office also tracked congressional opinion about the

space program and published regular Legislative

Activities Reports that summarized congressional

information related to the space program, including

excerpts from the Congressional Record, public opinion

polls, and information about legislators* tours of

NASA facilities. Frontier imagery from these NASA

sources inundated congressmen.'*

The relationship between NASA and Congress was

based upon NASA's funding needs and Congress's control

of the national budget. As a result, one major

interaction between the two occurred every year during

NASA's authorization hearings. NASA administrators worked to justify budget requests to the House

Committee on Science and Astronautics and found that

the frontier helped to accomplish that goal. Although

frontier rhetoric varied over time, some form was

always present.

NASA often discussed the historical precedents for

space exploration. During the 1961 Authorization

198 Hearings, officials claimed that "the urge to explore is innate in man." Space was only the newest in a long line of American frontiers. Deputy Associate

Administrator D. Brainerd Holmes observed that many

Americans worried about the nation's future direction.

Holmes believed that the space program was one major way to protect the country's "technological and social growth." Deputy Administrator Robert C. Seamans, Jr., echoed this belief during the 1966 Authorization hearings. "A balanced program of space and aeronautical activity, " Seamans argued, "is an essential requirement for both national power and human liberty.

By the late 1960s and early 1970s, NASA's use of frontier rhetoric had evolved from the theoretical to the practical. Administrators concentrated on the practical benefits of space exploration, what they referred to as "side benefits" or "spinoffs."

Administrators concentrated on Apollo's influence on the United States' economic and industrial foundation.

Historical references to past American frontiers did not disappear entirely from NASA's justifications of

199 its mission, but most arguments shifted to the practical results of space exploration.®

NASA also tried to encourage legislators' excitement about the space program. The agency furnished films for congressional committees and invited legislators to tour NASA facilities and observe Apollo launches firsthand. NASA also brought astronauts to speak to Congress and testify before space committees, understanding that many legislators viewed the astronauts as heroes. On these occasions, both congressional leaders and astronauts used frontier rhetoric to describe the nation's efforts in space. Appearing before the House of Representatives on January 22, 1973, the Apollo 17 astronauts employed frontier language to explain why the space program was important for the nation. Captain Eugene A. Cernan observed, "It is typical of the courage and self- sacrifice and that same dedication, that same ambition, that has made America for the last 200 years become the greatest nation that man has ever seen on earth." Dr. Harrison Schmitt echoed Cernan's comments, adding that "I like to think that we follow in the footsteps of some great explorers... who in the

200 last century helped us to explore the western frontier

of this country." These interactions between NASA and

Congress encouraged the use of frontier language

because both sides understood what these references

meant.^

NASA administrators and astronauts also indirectly

influenced Congress when they presented speeches to a

wide variety of public audiences throughout the United

States. Often legislators used speeches to prove

their larger arguments about the space program. These

speeches utilized many common frontier themes :

Americans (and particularly astronauts) as pioneers;

comparison of the Apollo program to Columbus's voyage ;

the impact of the space program on the United States

economy, democratic values, and society; and the

historical connections between space and American

frontiers. In a speech in Williamsburg, Virginia,

Administrator James Webb described the Apollo program

as "uniquely our quest— our unique destiny, and our

unlimited adventure." These types of speeches

certainly influenced the way in which legislators

described space exploration, even if they did not

always change larger opinions about space funding.®

201 The aerospace industry also had opportunities to

influence congressional opinion about the space program and often reinforced NASA's frontier themes and arguments. Of course, these companies were motivated by the desire to make a profit. If the

United States committed to large-scale space programs,

the aerospace industry would be a major beneficiary.

Called to testify before congressional committees in

the 1960s, industry executives advocated a strong

national space program, both in the present and the

future. Besides the space program's encouragement of

the American spirit. Dr. George L. Haller, Vice

President of General Electric Company, believed that

"the space and economic destinies of the American people are solidly linked together, and they cannot go

their separate ways.

Believing that the United States had to quickly determine a space policy for the post-Apollo era, in

1966 the Subcommittee on NASA Oversight of the House

Committee on Science and Astronautics completed a study of the space program's future. Subcommittee chairman Olin E. Teague (D-TX) solicited input from a number of aerospace industry leaders. Many executives

202 framed their arguments about the need for a strong space program in the next decades in frontier terms.

Aerojet-General Corporation president W. E. Zisch explained that an underlying basis for the nation's space program was man's inherent need to explore the unknown. Lysle A. Wood, vice president of Boeing

Company, went a step further, arguing that the United

States' exploration of the space frontier had "social and commercial benefits" as well as increasing national prestige. The president of Radiation,

Incorporated, J.A. Boyd, agreed with this assessment, observing that "Our Nation's economic strength stems from our ability to convert natural resources to the service of mankind. " Exploration of the space frontier was the latest part of this ongoing historical process.

Space committees also called scientific "experts" to testify about the value of the space program. In spite of divisions among scientists about how the nation could best use its scientific resources, however, the frontier remained a prominent theme in their discussions of space. Scientists were greatly divided over the issue of manned space flight. Some

203 believed that the money spent on sending Americans into space was wasted; they thought that it could be better spent on other scientific endeavors. At the same time, this group still supported the idea of exploration by unmanned spacecraft.

Other scientists were enthusiastic in their support of the Apollo program and felt that scientific needs were being adequately served through current priorities. These scientists tended to look at the philosophical aspects of space exploration as well as the scientific benefits to be accinied. Although the space program would have a major impact on scientific thought. Dr. Harold C. Urey believed that another result was even more important. "The object of the space program is not primarily science, " observed

Urey. "The primary object is adventure. It is adventure for me, for the members of this committee, for the man on the street, for all of us." He believed the cost of exploring the space frontier was worth the experience. Eminent scientist and scholar

Dr. Edward Teller compared the American space program to Columbus ' s voyage to the New World, arguing that

204 numerous untold benefits would result from space

exploration-“

In June 1963 the Senate Committee on Aeronautical

and Space Sciences devoted hearings to scientific

views of the Apollo program. Scientists who

participated in the hearings were greatly divided over

the issue of manned space flight. Dr. Philip Abelson,

an outspoken opponent of the lunar program, attacked

the frontier analogy. "Enthusiasts have described

space as an enormous frontier of vast potential and it

has been stated frequently that we face an opportunity

to that of Christopher Columbus when he sailed to

discover a new world," Abelson admitted. But "the analogy is a poor one," he declared. According to

Abelson, scientists already knew that they would not

find useful minerals to exploit on the moon or any appropriate site for frontier settlement.

Abelson's viewpoint represented a minority of

those called before the committee. Certainly no other witnesses refuted the validity of the frontier analogy and many incorporated it into their justifications of space exploration. Dr. Urey described not only the innate desire within humans to explore, but also put

205 the decision to pursue the lunar program in the context of the nation's past. The nation must choose to explore space if it was not to reject its heritage.

In reference to the possibility of the United States not going to the moon, Urey declared that "such a decision as that would...indicate a certain corrosion of [national] character." Dr. Colin S. Pittendrigh and Dr. Frederick Seitz agreed with Urey's assessment about how the direction of the space program reflected on the American character. Dr. Martin SchwarzschiId also believed that the space program would become "a renaissance in this country of the pioneering energy that [was characteristic] of the finest phases in the history of this country.

In addition, presidents influenced congressional discussions of the space program through a variety of means. They also used frontier rhetoric to support

NASA's budget to congressional audiences. Kennedy's

1962 State of the Union address referred to the space program as the effort "to develop in a new frontier of science, commerce, and cooperation, the position of the United States and the free world." In his 1969

State of the Union message, Lyndon Johnson utilized

206 frontier language, claiming that Apollo 8 symbolized, the American "economy, the democratic system, our sense of exploration." On January 20, 1969, Elichard

Nixon described in his inaugural address how the

United States had opened up the space frontier and was now experiencing its benefits.

As with NASA administrators and astronauts, legislators also inserted speeches by presidents and their administrations into the Congressional Record.

Although these speeches were intended for other audiences, they made Congress aware of presidents’ stands on the space program. Kennedy's speech at Rice

University in September 1962, with all of its frontier references, was inserted in the record by Senator

Hubert Humphrey. Using Kennedy's remarks, Humphrey argued that the United States could not afford to be second in space. The Congressional Record printed the text of several speeches by Vice President Johnson that focused on the importance of the space frontier for the nation's character. Johnson claimed that the

United States explored space "because of our national faith, not our national fears.

207 Journalists also influenced congressional opinions about the space program, and many legislators utilized newspaper articles to support their arguments both for and against NASA's budget. Many journalists made historical references to Americans' frontier heritage.

Some compared the congressional debate over space funding to fifteenth-century criticism of Columbus's voyage. They argued that just as it had been impossible to foresee the results of Columbus's discoveries in the 1400s, it was equally impossible to predict the many ways that the United States would benefit from the Apollo program. A number of senators and representatives adopted this argument to support the space budget.

Other newspaper accounts were even more obvious in their use of the frontier analogy to justify space, and many of these articles made their way into the

Congressional Record. Washington Post reporter Roscoe

Drummond claimed that the nation's space program was

"doing what comes naturally to the American people," something that was "in the national tradition." Two congressmen felt that Drummond's article was important enough to insert in the record. Representative

208 Charles E. Chamberlain (R-MI) contributed an article

that warned that Americans "ought not make the mistake

of Daniel Webster, who vowed never to vote for the

spending of a cent of the public money on the

exploration of the 'useless' American West."

Representative Olin E. Teague (D-TX) inserted an

editorial from the Huntsville Times that took the

frontier analogy even further. Titled, "We Have

Needed a New Frontier, " the editorial claimed that

frontiers have had a profound effect on the nation in

the past, and in an era of racial unrest, economic

uncertainty, and war, a new frontier would

significantly improve the nation's spirit and

character.

Not all articles were favorable towards the space

program. Legislators also occasionally used

journalists' accounts to argue against space funding.

In the aftermath of Apollo 11, Representative William

F. Ryan (D-NY) used articles from the New York Times

and Ave Maria to argue that, while the first moon

landing had been exciting, the United States should

reorganize its priorities and concentrate on the nation's domestic problems. Unlike the Huntsville

209 Times editorial that viewed the space program as a

solution to earthly problems, these two articles saw

space funding as part of the problem. Certainly this

message rang true for many congressional critics of

NASA's budget.

Congress and Public Opinion: How Polls Influenced

Space Funding

Of all the various groups interacting with

Congress, the general public had the greatest

influence on congressional decision-making.

Legislators paid close attention to the people who

elected them to office. Constituents influenced policy by writing letters to their elected representatives.

Opinion polls were also very influential. Most

legislators conducted polls on a regular basis to ensure that they remained in touch with their regions' needs and desires. Of course, other polls were also completed in the 1960s, including Gallup polls and numerous surveys commissioned by the aerospace

industry. Polls tended to be limited in scope.

210 however, and can only tell part of the story about space interest in the 1960s.

Opinion polls showed the limitations of Cold War justifications of space exploration, even in NASA's early years. A Gallup poll completed after John F.

Kennedy's "Urgent National Needs" speech in May 1961 asked participants if they would be willing to see the

United States spend forty billion dollars to land an

American on the moon. The majority of Americans said no, and, congressional polls reflected this early trend. In early 1962, Representative James E. Van

Zandt (R-PA) asked his constituents this question:

"Should the U.S. try to place a man in space ahead of the Russians regardless of cost?" In spite of early

Soviet space successes such as Sputnik and Gagarin's flight the preceding year, more than eighty-five percent of those polled said no. Even in the early

1960s, cost was a factor in many Americans' support of space exploration.

National interest in the space program increased throughout much of the 1960s, even if concern about space spending also increased. The Cold War seemed to be less of a factor in most Americans ' support of the

211 space program as the decade progressed. A Trendex poll conducted in early 1964 observed that although interest in the Apollo program continued to grow, it was with "no sense of urgency, " and "overall space expenditures continue to undergo scrutiny and questioning." Another poll completed later the same year commented that over two—thirds of Americans supported the space program. Financed by the aerospace industry, space advocates also made these polls available to legislators.^^

By the mid-1960s, more Americans supported space exploration and its funding than opposed it. When polled about NASA's funding in 1965, forty-two percent were pleased with the current funding levels and sixteen percent wanted the budget to be increased, while only thirty-three percent wanted space funding to be reduced. Another poll showed sixty percent satisfied with current spending levels and seven percent wanting an increase, with only twenty-nine percent advocating a decrease in space funding. The majority of Americans were becoming more interested in exploration of the space frontier even as they were less concerned about Soviet competition in space.

212 They believed that the space program provided tangible

benefits for the nation similar to those provided by

the frontier in the nineteenth century, including

America's leadership role, national strength, and the

economy.

By the late 1960s, legislators used polls more and more to justify their position on space exploration.

In particular, the space budget was often juxtaposed with spending for other national priorities such as

the Vietnam War and social programs. Poll results varied, drawn from different parts of the country that

each had its own concerns. In spite of some

variation, some larger trends emerged from the survey

results. First, only one congressman's poll asked

respondents' opinions about whether the lunar program

should be completed. Fifty-five percent of

Pennsylvanians said yes, while only twenty-seven percent said no. A nationwide Trendex poll question

about the Apollo program proved to be even more positive for NASA, with sixty-eight percent of

Americans supporting it and only twenty-one percent against

213 A second theme of congressional polls in the late

1960s was the position of space in comparison with other national priorities. Constituents commonly ranked space near the end of the list. Representative

Margaret Heckler's (R-MA) constituents placed exploration of the space frontier behind such issues as defense, social programs, and education, with only foreign aid receiving fewer votes. Out of nine possible options, the people of Wisconsin made space their seventh priority, once again behind a variety of educational and social programs. A California poll echoed these findings.z*

Another significant trend in the late 1960s was the increasing number of Americans favoring reductions in NASA's budget. The majority of residents polled in

North Carolina, California, and Arizona approved of

NASA's current funding levels. Many New England and

Midwest states advocated reductions in the space program. In some cases states supporting the current level of space spending benefitted from NASA centers or aerospace industries located within their borders, but this explanation does not explain all poll results. Ohio, for example, was home to NASA's Lewis

214 Research Center and claimed astronauts John Glenn and

Neil Armstrong as residents, yet the majority of

Ohioans wanted space funding to be reduced. North

Carolina did not have any major connections to the space program but supported the maintenance of the space budget. Political affiliation did not seem to play a major role either, as responses both for and against were equally split between Democrats and

Republicans.

As the first moon landing approached in 1969, many legislators and their constituents were caught up in the excitement of space. After Apollo 8 successfully orbited the moon in December 1968 and Apollos 9 and 10 built upon the success of past missions in early 1969, space funding remained an important issue in Congress.

As a result, fewer polls reflected a desire to cut space funding in the first half of the year, and even those that were more critical of NASA's budget showed positive and negative responses as almost equal.

As exciting as 1969 was for space enthusiasts, many polls showed that the majority of Americans placed exploration of the space frontier rather low on their list of priorities, and legislators paid close

215 attention to their constituents* interests. Even

young people, among the Americans most interested in

space, put it significantly behind funding for

education and the War on Poverty. It is interesting

that only days after the first moon landing, a survey

of Oregon residents prioritized space as second to

last in a list of twenty major issues that the United

States faced. Even the excitement of watching Neil

Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walk on the moon from

television sets in their own living rooms was not

enough to persuade these Americans that the space

program was that important.

After the success of Apollo 11 in July 1969, the majority of Americans were excited about the nation's

space accomplishments but felt that future NASA budgets could be significantly reduced. To a certain

extent, this trend reflected a common belief that the

United States had beat the Soviets by landing on the moon and no longer needed a large-scale space program.

Congressional polls taken in the months following the

lunar landing tended to reflect this outlook, with the majority of those surveyed wanting funding reductions and unwilling to commit to a major goal such as

216 sending men to Mars in the near future. Congressional

funding of NASA programs in the 1970s usually

reflected these wishes.^®

By 1971, a Louis Harris poll reflected the trend

in national opinions about the space program. Asked

if the lunar program had been worth the cost, the majority of those polled, fifty-six percent, said no.

Only thirty-nine percent responded in the affirmative.

While college-educated Americans and those under the

age of fifty tended to be more positive about the

importance of the Apollo program, most Americans were

relatively negative. Overall, Americans seemed to

reject the value of the space frontier. It is not

surprising that in this climate most legislators chose to reduce funding for NASA's future programs, believing that their constituents put less value on space than on other government policies.^®

Congressional Responses to External Influences

Many issues influenced congressional opinions about the space program in the 1960s, both positively and negatively. Legislators continued to be concerned

217 with Soviet space feats and whether space would be a

strategic problem for the United States. American

space accomplishments such as Alan Shepard's, John

Glenn's, and Scott Carpenter's space flights and later

the Apollo missions could influence Congress, as well

as other national priorities such as funding £or

education, the Vietnam War, and social programs, and

electoral politics. Legislators were bombarded on all

sides by opinions and information. Because of the many forces at work throughout the decade,

congressional support for NASA funding varied from

year to year.

The late 1950s had already set the tone for the politicized environment of space debates.

Congressional leaders had connected space with the

Cold War, and certainly legislators throughout the

1960s continued to do so. When Kennedy appeared before Congress and set the lunar landing goal in May

1961, a new element was added. The president may have established a national plan for space exploration, but

Congress controlled NASA's ability to fulfill that goal through the agency's budget.

218 Congressional leaders learned about NASA* s space

exploration plans through the agency’s annual budget

authorization hearings. According to NASA

administrators, although earthly frontiers had

disappeared in the previous century, space provided a

new frontier for American exploration, a "new domain"

that "awaits conquest by man." The American space

program represented the nation’s strength and self-

confidence and "captured the imagination of men the

world over." Representative Ken Hechler (D-WV),

responded favorably to this explanation of the

importance of space exploration, declaring "I think

Apollo is really a bold, new, challenging, and

imaginative concept." He advocated an immediate

response to NASA’s request for funding.

Congressional discourse on space in the early

1960s established a number of themes that persisted throughout the decade. Reflecting their constituents’ views, one topic was criticism of the money spent on

space. At a hearing of the Joint Senate and House

Economic Committee in January 1962, Senator Paul H.

Douglas (D-IL) challenged the money spent on the national space program, declaring that Apollo was

219 "purely a stunt to get there before someone else."

Douglas argued that the money would be better spent on education and health programs instead. Others believed that NASA's mission was valid but questioned

how space was prioritized in comparison with other

interests. Even some legislators who were relatively enthusiastic about the space program expressed doubts about the level of funding. For example. Senator

Margaret Chase Smith (R-MN) discussed her conflicting

feelings about funding for project Apollo in May 1963, explaining that Cold War justifications might not be enough to warrant NASA's current funding levels. If projected "fallout" benefits of the space program were actually realized, however, the expense might be worth

the results.^^

In spite of some legislators' misgivings, most were fairly positive in their comments about the

American space program. Frontier language was often present in favorable commentaries on the space program, even if usually missing from critics' discussions. In response to the critical Senate

Republican Policy Committee report on the space program in 1963, Senator Clinton Anderson (D-NM)

220 explained that "as certainly as explorers opened our

own West.-.we are going to continue this bold journey

through space with all of its direct and side benefits

to this generation and those which come after." On another occasion, the senator claimed that "the pioneer spirit is still vigorous within this Nation."

In Anderson's opinion, space represented the new

frontier, with all of the benefits of earlier

frontiers for American society. Representative George

P. Miller (D-CA) referred to this same spirit, arguing

"I don't think that we...are any different in spirit, daring, courage, and resourcefulness than were our

frontier forefathers.

Legislators also utilized the Columbus analogy when explaining the need for space exploration.

Responding to former President Eisenhower's criticisms of the Apollo program. Representative Charles H.

Wilson (D-CA) stated that although "when Columbus left the Old World in 1492 in search of new lands it was fashionable in certain quarters to criticize the extent and purpose of his voyage into the unknown, " history had justified his expedition. Other representatives also utilized the Columbus analogy,

221 comparing astronauts to the fifteenth century explorer.

Congressional references to the space frontier were even more frequent in time periods surrounding successful American launches. Major L. Gordon

Cooper's space flight on May 15-16, 1963 provides an example of this trend. Representative Carl Albert (D-

OK) argued that Cooper's success was the result of the nation's historical character. Cooper was "guided by the historic courage of our people to cross a new horizon [and] sustained by the strength of Americans to do whatever must be done to meet any challenge and win." Senator Thomas H. Kuchel (R-CA) claimed that

Cooper's flight was "truly an all-American adventure," while Representative Donald G. Brotzman (R-CO) declared Cooper to be a national hero, having the special American characteristics of "courage, ability, and resourcefulness.

Like NASA administrators, many legislators focused on the potential advantages of space benefits for

American society back on Earth. As Chairman of the

House Committee on Science and Astronautics, George

Miller (D-CA) had many opportunities to discuss the

222 nation's space goals. He often highlighted the benefits of the space program "for the welfare and betterment of humanity." Just as the frontier had

influenced the development of the national economy and

social structure in the past, exploration of the space

frontier would strengthen the United States economy and industry and "benefit the Nation in thousands of different ways.

Often congressional discussions of the space program centered around the question, "Why should the

United States explore space?" Legislators had a number of responses to this question, ranging from

strategic concerns to philosophical arguments about the value of space. Often frontier references were

integrated into these explanations. Representative J.

Edward Roush (D-IN) put space into the context of frontier exploration, arguing that "man will always explore the unknown, and that inevitably when we explore the unknown great good comes from it."

Representative Don Fuqua (D-FL) connected this idea to the Cold War, claiming that the United States "cannot afford, as leader of the free world, to pull out the great voyage of discovery, leaving the exploration of

223 space to the Russians." Representative F. Edward

Hebert (D-LA) connected space exploration to national character, arguing that to abandon the space program would be to "betray our ideals as a people, to undermine our role as the free world's leader, and to turn against the American heritage of adventure."^®

Like many other Americans, legislators focused more and more on the practical advantages of space exploration. Representative Barber B. Conable, Jr.,

(R-NY) pointed out to the Committee on Science and

Astronautics that the side benefits of the space program were of the greatest interest for his constituents. Conable wanted the committee to develop a list of space benefits because it would help him to explain the values of space to his voters. A study completed by the Committee on Science and Astronautics also focused on the many benefits to result from the national space program, arguing that space had an impact on national security, the economy, and technological progress. Practical justifications were becoming more important as the space program progressed, in part because more benefits were actually being realized. Rather than speculating

224 about future benefits, space advocates could list the ways in which space already affected Americans ' lives

in positive ways.

In many respects, 1968 was a turning point in

congressional debates about space funding. Although

some legislators still spoke enthusiastically about

space, most were becoming more critical of prioritization of space within the national budget.

This lack of support for NASA's budget reflected two trends. With the upcoming moon landing, many

legislators felt that the space program was almost over. They framed the space program in terms of a single competition with the Soviets rather than as part of a long-term plan. Once that goal was accomplished, there would be no need to spend money on the program. Many opinion polls seemed to reflect this assumption as well. Space was also an easy target for legislators who viewed it as a nonessential program in comparison to social programs. Senator

Walter F. Mondale's (D-MN) actions reflected this change in attitude. In July 1968 he resigned from the

Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences in order to become a member of the Senate Committee on

225 Labor and Public Welfare instead. His position on the space committee was not immediately filled.^®

The 1968 congressional budget debates turned out to be a difficult climate for NASA. Legislators continually juxtaposed the space frontier with the needs of other programs. Along with more than seventy other Republicans, Representative Hastings Keith (R-

MA) called for reductions in the "nonessential" space budget in order to further fund "urgent human needs."

Even many who approved in theory of the United States exploring space at the same time were critical of the prioritization of space over other issues. "I have no quarrel on principle with the objectives of our space effort," said Senator Joseph S. Clark (D-PA). "The question is, do we have to be in such a hurry?" He felt that, at the present time, the United States would do better investing its money in improving

Americans' everyday lives rather than in a luxury program like space.

Other legislators* comments during the budget debate seemed actually hostile to the space program.

They did not believe frontier arguments about the importance of the national space program, either in

226 terms of philosophical benefits or the effects of the

program on the nation's economy, society, and

political structure- Often legislators would refer to

the space program as "nonessential" when arguing for budget reductions. Representative Delbert L. Latta

(R-OH) dismissed the importance of the space program,

arguing that social program budgets could be increased by significantly reducing funding for the space program and other defense programs. Some legislators believed that the space program needed to be drastically cut back, if not done away with altogether. "This program does the average American no good at all, " declared Representative Paul A. Fino

(R-NY) . "I do not see what the point is of putting a man on the moon over the dead body of the typical

American taxpayer.

Legislators who enthusiastically supported the space program seemed to be in the minority by 1968.

Space committee members still made positive comments, such as the chairman of the House Committee on Science and Astronautics, Olin E. Teague (D-TX). Teague continued to introduce positive speeches and newspaper articles into the Congressional Record that pointed to

227 the many benefits of the space program. The Apollo 7 launch on Columbus Day afforded Representative Peter

W. Rodino, Jr., (D-NJ) another space committee member, the opportunity to comment enthusiastically on the space program. The astronauts, observed Rodino,

"demonstrated the same faith, determination, and inspiration which so many years ago led the 'Admiral of the Ocean Sea' to landfall in the Western

Hemisphere.

1969 was a year of contradictions when it came to congressional rhetoric about space. On the one hand, the success of Apollo 11 inspired many legislators to react enthusiastically to the experience. On the other hand, many Americans viewed the moon landing as the successful completion of the nation's space program. Congress understood that space stimulated

Americans' imaginations, but in an era when Cold War anxiety seemed to be decreasing, the promise of space did not make constituents want to open their pocketbooks.

Often legislators referred to astronauts as pioneers or described their "pioneering spirit," which was inspired by the nation's historical pioneers.

228 Represeatative Jeffery Cohelan (D-CA) went a step

further by claiming that all Americans became pioneers vicariously through the national space effort. As the

Apollo missions were completed, many legislators referred to the heroic qualities of the astronauts.

Representative Charles H. Wilson (D-CA) observed that

"with Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy taken

from us this year, we were sorely in need of a hero. "

He believed that the astronauts, as "modern

Columbuses," fulfilled that need. According to legislators, astronauts had many of the characteristics of American heroes. Astronauts were bold, courageous, daring, skilled, resourceful, and determined, embodying all that Americans valued in heroes. Like many Americans, legislators were fascinated by the experiences of the astronauts and were thrilled when they came to speak to Congress

Legislators also referred to the actual process of sending Americans into space and the destination of space in frontier terms. Americans would "conquer" the moon in the same way that they had conquered the

American West in the nineteenth century. Space exploration was the effort by Americans to "expand our

229 horizons." Representative Louis Frey, Jr., (R-FL) put the space program in a similar context, stating that

"Apollo 11 showed the world that the greatness of

America is not just in material goods or technology, but in its spirit." The words "space frontier" even appeared prominently in both House and Senate resolutions on the success of the first moon landing.

Although justifications of the space program claimed that the moon landing would be "for all mankind," in reality most legislators saw the mission as being uniquely American. Representative John R.

Rarick (D-LA) was very supportive of the space program but expressed concern that the astronauts might not erect an American flag on the moon. Rarick believed that "history and national pride demand that Old Glory be raised there." Representative William G. Bray (R-

IN) was interested in what name NASA would assign to the first landing site. "The name should be indisputably American, in that it would reflect part, parcel, and essence of the best our Republic has produced, " Bray explained to members of the House of

Representatives. Ironically, Bray advocated naming the landing site after Eisenhower, who had been

230 against the lunar program from the start and had been critical of Kennedy's decision to make the Apollo program a national priority.

After the immediate euphoria of the moon landing had worn off, old tensions resurfaced in Congress between those who defended NASA's funding and those who wanted to limit the agency's budget. The same themes reappeared in congressional discourses. Space proponents almost always employed frontier arguments to justify future space exploration, arguing that the space frontier benefitted the United States in immeasurable ways, both practical and philosophical.

Practical benefits of the space program remained a means of selling the space program to skeptical legislators, showing them what the nation had gained by funding the Apollo program.

Space program opponents still made the same arguments that they had been making throughout the

1960s. A new element, however, was added to the opposition. Some legislators had found the moon landing exciting but felt that it was now time to focus attention back on domestic priorities. The major question seemed to be whether the United States

231 should make a major national commitment, along the

lines of the Apollo program, to landing a man on Mars

within the next two decades. Most legislators opposed

setting such a goal for the immediate future when so

many problems back on Earth needed attention."*®

Congress and the Space Frontier in the 1970s

Already by the beginning of the 1970s, NASA's

budget was under fire from many sides, including a

significant group within Congress. By the late 1970s,

the climate within Congress was even less friendly

towards NASA. The last Apollo expedition in 1973

focused some positive attention on the nation's space

accomplishments in the preceding fifteen years, but

after Apollo was over the dominant attitude was to

prioritize space much lower than it had been during

the 1960s. Rather than establishing another large-

scale goal such as a manned mission to Mars, Congress, as well as the presidents, chose to focus on exploration closer to Earth, first through the Skylab missions and then through the new Space Shuttle that became operational in the 1980s.

232 la many respects Apollo 17 represented both the celebration of a major technological accomplishment and the ending of an era for American space exploration. Representative Edward P. Boland (D-MA) praised Apollo 17 as "the last in this series of man's most magnificent and courageous adventures." He seemed almost nostalgic when discussing the nation's space accomplishments during the Apollo years.

Representative Olin Teague, however, went a step beyond praising the final Apollo mission. He used the completion of i^ollo 17 to argue that the nation must continue to aggressively pursue a strong space program. "We should consider the need to assure adequate funding for our national space efforts so vital to our economic well-being and national security," Teague contended.^'

In spite of criticisms of space spending throughout the 1970s, there was also a certain spirit of nostalgia. Two former astronauts were elected to the Senate, John Glenn (D-OH) and Harrison H. Schmitt

(R-NM). They would obviously be enthusiastic about space exploration based on their past experiences.

Moon landing anniversaries and other events

233 commemorating the space program allowed legislators to reminisce about the past. Senator Adlai E. Stevenson

(D-IL), declaring that "this country will be remembered always as the first pioneers to challenge successfully the frontiers of space," introduced a joint resolution asking President Jimmy Carter to declare July 16-24, 1979 as "United States Space

Observance" days to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the first moon landing.*®

Schmitt, as a former astronaut, was very critical of the Carter administration's conservative stand on space policy. Believing that Carter's decision not to pursue a major new space goal was a major mistake, he argued that the "younger generations of Americans

[were] chomping at the bit to move our civilization of freedom back to the frontier of space. " The United

States must accept the challenge of new frontiers if it wanted to remain a great nation. If the United

States chose not to continue to explore the space frontier, it would have detrimental effects on the nation as a whole, and especially the younger generation. In spite of arguments by Schmitt and other space advocates, however. Carter was unwilling

234 to commit the nation to such an expensive

undertaking.

Conclusion

Congressional opinions about the space program

varied greatly throughout the first decades of the

American space program. In the aftermath of Sputnik

in the late 1950s, Congress led the push for a more

competitive space program. The Cold War was a motivating factor in congressional support. During

the 1960s, legislators had diverse views of space

exploration. In the early 1960s, opinions on space were divided, with some legislators arguing that the

amount being spent on the space program was a waste.

As the Apollo program developed and early missions were successful, those who opposed NASA's budget

requests were in the minority. The late 1960s were a difficult period for the future of the national space program. The majority of congressmen were

enthusiastic about Apollo's successes, but other

national priorities demanded more attention. Congress

235 proved unwilling to commit to another major long-term goal such as sending a manned expedition to Mars.

Legislators were pressured from all sides as they tried to establish the nation's space policy.

Dependent upon Congress for its funding, NASA lobbied for an expanded purpose for the space program. The agency presented both practical and philosophical justifications for exploration, hoping to garner support for its annual budget. Presidents also pressured Congress to support NASA's budget requests.

Although their visions of space exploration may not have been as expansive as NASA's, presidents were still responsible for presenting the budget to

Congress for consideration. Aerospace industry experts and scientists also influenced legislators.

Journalists did not usually target Congress but still had an indirect effect as legislators used newspaper articles to support their own arguments.

The greatest pressure on legislators came from their own constituents. Congressmen were responsible to the people who voted for them. These politicians were aware of their constituents' needs and interests through letters and polls and tended to reflect

236 changing attitudes at the state and local levels.

Although most Americans found the space program exciting, according to surveys they did not prioritize space as highly as other national issues.

Congressional arguments both for and against the space program echoed these concerns.

Regardless of the degree of congressional support for space exploration, frontier rhetoric remained prominent in discussion about space. Space advocates within NASA, the executive branch, the scientific and technical communities, the media, the general public, and even within Congress all utilized frontier justifications for space exploration during the 1960s.

They argued that exploration of the space frontier influenced the nation in a variety of ways, mirroring the influence of the western frontier of the nineteenth century. The space program would strengthen the American economy and industrial base, uplift and transform American society, and protect democratic values for future generations. Even frontier arguments, however, did not necessarily translate into congressional funding for NASA programs.

237 Endnotes

1.Ken Hechler, The Endless Space Frontier: A History of the House Committee on Science and Astronautics, 1959-1978 (San Diego: American Astronautical Society, 1982), 1-6, 13—15, 19-21; Walter A. McDougall, the Heavens and the Earth: A Political History of the Space Aae (New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1985), 148—155, 166-170, 172—176- For more discussion of Dwight Eisenhower's reaction to Sputnik, see ch. 3, fns. 2 and 3.

2.Public Law 85-568, 85th Congress, H.R. 12575, July 29, 1958, known as the "National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958," in NHRC, White House, President John F. Kennedy Files.

3.National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958; Select Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration, Space Handbook: Astronautics and Its Applications. 85th Congress, 2d session (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1959), 2, 4- 5.

4.Legislative Activities Reports can be found in NHRC, Office of Legislative Affairs Files. (Hereafter these reports will be referred to as LAR. )

5-"General Statement on the NASA Space Flight Program," in U.S. Congress, House, Eighty-Sixth Congress, Second Session, on H.R. 10246, 1961 NASA Authorization: Hearings Before the Committee on Science and Astronautics and Subcommittees Nos. 1, 2. 3, and 4. February 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 26, 1960, p. 159; D. Brainerd Holmes, testimony in U.S. Congress, House, Eighty-Seventh Congress, Second Session, on H.R. 10100 (superseded by H.R. 11737), 1963 NASA Authorization: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Manned Space Flight of the Committee on Science and Astronautics, March 6, 7, 8, 14, 20, 26, 27, 28, 29, April 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10, 1962 [no. 2], Pajrt 2, p. 377, 564; Dr. Robert C. Seamans, Jr., testimony in U.S. Congress, House, Eighty-Ninth Congress, First Session, on H.R. 3730 (superseded by H.R. 7717), 1966 NASA Authorization: Hearings Before

238 the Committee on Science and Astronautics, Feb. 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, and April 13, 1965 [No. 2], Part 1, p. 50.

6-Dr. Homer E. Newell's Testimony in U.S. Congress, House, Eighty-Ninth Congress, First Session, on H.R. 3730 (superseded by H.R. 7717), 1966 NASA Authorization: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications of the Committee on Science and Astronautics, March 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 22, 24, 25, and 26, 1965 [No. 2], Part 3, pp. 67-90, 843; U.S. Congress, Senate, Ninety-First Congress, Second Session, Space Program Benefits: Hearing Before the Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences. April 6, 1970, especially Dr. Thomas O. Paine's testimony on pp. 4- 8, 39-40, 62; Statement of Astronaut Capt. John Young in U.S. Congress, House, Ninety-Second Congress, Second Session, Apollo 16 Mission Report: Hearing Before the Committee on Science and Astronautics. May 16, 1972 [No. 18], 28.

7.LAR. May 16, 1962; LAR. May 22, 1962; LAR. Jan. 8, 1969; Remarks by Senator Howard W. Cannon (D-NV) in Space Program Benefits, p. 50; Remarks by Capt. Eugene A. Cernan and Dr. Harrison Schmitt in Congressional Record. Jan. 22, 1973, reprinted in LAR. Jan. 22, 1973.

8.James E. Webb, "From Runnymede to Ganymede," Williamsburg, Virginia, May 27, 1967, inserted in Congressional Record by Senator John L. McClellan (D-AR), June 1, 1967, reprinted in LAR. See also Speech by Astronaut Joseph Duke to convention of the South Carolina Department of the American Legion, Charleston, South Carolina, June 29, 1968, inserted in Congressional Record by Rep. L. Mendel Rivers (D- SC) , July 2, 1968, p. E6107; John Glenn, "In the End We Get Back to Standards," inserted in Congressional Record by Senator Milward L. Simpson (R-WV), April 30, 1969, pp. 6918-6919; Dr. George Mueller, remarks to the Texas State Society and members of Texas congressional delegation, inserted in Congressional Record by Rep. James J. Pickle (D-TX), Oct. 10, 1967, pp. H13023-13024; Dr. Wernher von Braun, "The Outlook for Space Exploration," speech at the Dr.

239 Robert H. Goddard Memorial Dinner, March 5, 1963, inserted in Congressional Record by Rep. James G. Fulton (R-PA), March 12, 1962, pp. 1769-1771.

9.Statement by Dr. George L. Haller, Vice President of General Electric Company and General Manager of Defense Electronics Division, 1963 NASA Authorization: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Manned Space Flight of the Committee on Science and Astronautics, Part 2, p. 430, also 426-429. See also Statement by J.S. McDonnell, president of McDonnell Aircraft Company, in Congressional Record. June 5, 1963, reprinted in NHRC, Comment on the National Space Program.

lO.W.E. Zisch, Aerojet-General Corporation, to Olin E. Teague (D-TX), October 29, 1965, in U.S. Congress, House, Eighty-Seventh Congress, Second Session, Future National Space Objectives: Staff Study for the Subcommittee on NASA Oversight of the Committee on Science and Astronautics. Serial 0, 1966, p. 214; Lysle A. Wood, vice president, Boeing Company Aerospace Group, to Olin E. Teague, Jan. 21, 1966, in Future National Space Objectives, p. 224, also 226, 228; J.A. Boyd, President, Radiation, Inc., to Olin E. Teague, April 27, 1966, in Future National Space Objectives, p. 318. See also Hilliard W. Paige, General Electric Company, Missile and Space Division, to Olin E. Teague, Jun 3, 1966, in Future National Space Objectives, p. 246.

11.See United States Senate, Eighty-Eighth Congress, First Session, Scientists' Testimony on Space Goals. June 10 and 11, 1963.

12.Dr. Harold C. Urey, testimony in 1966 NASA Authorization: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Space. Science and Applications of the Committee on Science and Astronautics. Part 3, p. 436; Dr. Edward Teller, testimony in U.S. Congress, House, Eighty- Seventh Congress, Second Session, on H.R. 10100 (superseded by H.R. 11737), 1963 NASA Authorization: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Advanced Research and Technologv of the Committee on Science and Astronautics. March 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 23, 27, 28, 29, and April 3, 1962 [No. 2], Part 3,

240 p. 1620.

13.Dr. Philip Abelson, Director, Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institute of Washington, and Editor of Science, testimony in Scientists' Testimony on Space Goals, p. 5.

14.Dr.Harold C. Urey, Professor of Chemistry at University of California at San Diego, remarks in Scientists' Testimony on Space Goals, p. 57, also 51-52; Dr. Colin S. Pittendrigh, Professor of Biology at Princeton University, remarks in Scientists' Testimony on Space Goals, p. 81; Dr. Frederick Seitz, president. National Academy of Sciences, remarks in Scientists' Testimony on Space Goals, p. 93-94; Dr. Martin SchwarzschiId, professor of Astronomy at Princeton University, remarks in Scientists' Testimony on Space Goals, p. 162.

15.John F. Kennedy, State of the Union address, Jan. 11, 1962, reprinted in LAR. Jan. 11, 1962; Lyndon B. Johnson, State of the Union address, in Congressional Record. House, p. H274; Richard M. Nixon, inaugural address, Jan. 20, 1969, in Congressional Record. Senate, p. S561.

16.Senator Hubert Humphrey D-MN), insertion of speech by President John F. Kennedy at Rice University, Houston, Texas, Sept, 12, 1962, in Congressional Record. Senate, p. S18239; Representative Olin E. Teague (D-TX), insertion of speech by Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson to National Rocket Club, March 22, 1963, in Congressional Record. Appendix, pp. A1987-1988; Representative Carlton R. Sickles (D-MD), insertion of speech by Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson at the University of Maryland, June 8, 1963, in Congressional Record. Appendix, June 18, 1963, p. A3867. See also Representative Joseph E. Karth (D- MN), insertion of speech by Dr. Edward C. Welsh, Executive Secretary of the National Aeronautics and Space Council, "The Meaning of the Space Age," in Congressional Record. Appendix, May 26, 1966, pp. A2862-2863; Representative George P. Miller (D-CA), insertion of speech by Dr. Edward C. Welsh, "Space Perspective," at the Fourth International Symposium

241 on Bioastronautics and the Exploration of Space, San Antonio, Texas, June 24, 1968, in Congressional Record. Extension, June 24, 1968, pp. E5775-5776.

17.Rep. Olin E. Teague (D-TX), insertion of article by former lieutenant general Ira C. Eaker, "Columbus and the Moon— Debates on Voyages Are Similar," in San Diego Union. Sept. 22, 1963, in Congressional Record. Nov. 4, 1963, pp. 6880-6881; Senator Clinton P. Anderson (D-NM), insertion of editorial, "Man on the Moon," in Washington Post. May 7, 1963, in Congressional Record. Appendix, May 13, 1963, p. A2975; Rep. George P. Miller (D-CA), insertion of editorial, "World Will Be Ruled From Skies Above," in Life. May 17, 1963, in Congressional Record. Appendix, May 20, 1963, pp. A3160-3161.

18.Rep. Edward J. Patten (D-NJ), insertion of article by Roscoe Drummond, "Race to the Moon: Why Is It So Important?," Washington Post. May 6, 1963, in Congressional Record. Appendix, May 13, 1963, p. A2951; Rep. George P. Miller (D-CA), insertion of article by Drummond, "Race to the Moon," in Congressional Record. Appendix, May 16, 1963, p. A3124; Rep. Charles E. Chamberlain (R-MI), insertion of editorial from Owosso (Michigan) Araus-Press, Jan. 2, 1969, in Congressional Record, Extension, Jan. 9, 1969, p. E157; Rep. Olin E. Teague (D-TX), insertion of editorial, "We Have Needed a New Frontier," Huntsville Times, in Congressional Record. Extension, Oct. 1, 1969, p. E8006.

19.Representative William F. Ryan (D-NY), insertion of article by John A. Hamilton, "Meanwhile, Back on Earth," New York Times. July 28, 1969, and Gary G. Gerlach, "American Priorities: 'Lost in Space?'," Ave Maria. July 26, 1969, in Congressional Record. House, August 13, 1969, pp. H7359-7362.

20.Gallup poll on Space Exploration, May 31, 1961, in Dr. George H. Gallup, ed., The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion. 1935-1971. vol. 3, 1959-1971 (New York: Random House, 1972), 1720; Congressman James E. Van Zandt (R-PA) , Poll of constituents, Jan. 24,

242 1962, reprinted in LAR» Jan. 24, 1962.

21.Public Opinion Survey, "Attitude Toward Government Space and Moon Exploration Program, " conducted by Trendex for MacManus, John & Adams, Inc., February 1964, in National Air and Space Museum Library (hereafter referred to as NASM), Social Impact Collection, File OS—170970-50; Public Opinion Survey, "Attitude Toward Government Space and Moon Exploration Program," conducted by Trendex for Thiokol Chemical Corporation, Sept. 21, 1964, in NASM, Social Impact Collection, File OS-170970-50- The first survey showed that support for the lunar program had improved from 59% in Sept. 1963 to 64% in Feb. 1964, while opposition had declined from 39% to 31% over the same time period. See also Public Opinion Survey, "Attitude Towards the Government Space and Moon Program, " conducted by Trendex, for Thiokol Chemical Corporation, Oct. 1965, in NASM, Social Impact Collection, File OS-170970-52. One Trendex poll on the public's perceptions of space exploration was inserted into the Congressional Record in January 1969. See Rep. Olin E. Teague, Extension of Remarks, Congressional Record. Jan. 6, 1969, p. E65.

22. Gallup Poll, released July 23, 1965, in Gallup, The Gallup Poll, vol. 3, p. 1952; Trendex poll, Oct. 1965, NASM, File OS-170970-52; Public Opinion Survey, "Public Attitude Towards the Government Space and Moon Program, " Conducted by Trendex for Thiokol Chemical Corporation, Jan. 1967, in NASM, Social Impact Collection, File OS-170970- 56. When the Gallup poll asked the question, "Which country— the United States or Russia— do you think is farther ahead in the field of space research?," 47% of respondents said the United States, while only 24% said Russia. The October 1965 Trendex poll asked participants to rank important reasons for the American space program. Only 38% listed defense and security, while a combined total of 53% listed non­ military benefits and economic growth. See also Public Opinion Survey, "Attitude Towards the Government Space and Moon Program, " conducted by Trendex for Thiokol Chemical Corporation, June/July 1966, in NASM, Social Impact Collection, File OS-

243 170970-54; Public Opinion Survey, "Attitude Towards the Government Space and Moon Program, " conducted by Trendex for Thiokol Chemical Corporation, Nov. 1966, in NASM, Social Impact Collection, File OS-170970- 54.

23.Rep. James G. Fulton (R-PA), Questionnaire of constituents in Twenty-Seventh Congressional District of Pennsylvania, in Congressional Record. September 24, 1968, reprinted in LAR, Sept. 24, 1968; Public Opinion Survey, "Attitude Towards the Government Space and Moon Program, " by Trendex for Thiokol Chemical Corporation, Oct. 1968, in NASM, Social Impact Collection, File OS-170970-58.

24.Poll by Rep. Margaret Heckler (R-MA), printed Office of Legislative Affairs Special Report, "Congressional Opinion Polls," in NHRC, Impact Files, Congressional Relations; Poll by Rep. William A. Steiger (R-WI) of Constituents of Sixth District of Wisconsin, inserted in Congressional Record. August 2, 1968, LAR. Aug. 2, 1968; Poll by Rep. Jeffery Cohelan (D-CA) of Constituents of California's Seventh Congressional District, inserted in Congressional Record. June 24, 1968, in NHRC, Office of Legislative Affairs, LAR. June 24, 1968.

25.Polls in favor of maintaining current space funding include Rep. Sam Steiger (R-AZ), poll of constituents inserted in Congressional Record. July 7, 1968, reprinted in, LAR. July 7, 1968; Rep. James C. Corman (D-CA), poll inserted in Congressional Record. Sept. 4, 1968, reprinted in LAR. Sept. 4, 1968; Rep. Charles Raper Jonas (R-NC), poll inserted in Congressional Record. Sept. 6, 1968, reprinted in LAR. Sept. 6, 1968. Polls in favor of reducing current budget levels for NASA include Rep. William L. Hungate (D-MO), poll inserted in Congressional Record. May 22, 1968, reprinted in LAR. May 22, 1968; Rep. Silvio 0. Conte (R-MA), poll inserted in Congressional Record. June 4, 1968, reprinted in LAR. June 4, 1968; Rep. William V. Roth (R-DE), poll inserted in Congressional Record. August 2, 1968, reprinted in LAR. August 2, 1968; Rep. Robert V. Denney (R-NE), poll inserted in Congressional

244 Record. Sept. 11, 1968, reprinted in LAR. Sept. 11, 1968; Rep. James C. Cleveland (R-NH), poll inserted in Congressional Record. Sept. 19, 1968, reprinted in LAR. Sept. 19, 1968; Rep. John C. Culver (D-IA), poll inserted in Congressional Record. Oct. 21, 1968, reprinted in LAR. Oct. 21, 1968; Rep. Samuel L. Devine (R-OH) and Rep. Chalmers P. Wylie (R-OH), poll inserted in Congressional Record. Oct. 1, 1968, reprinted in LAR. Oct. 1, 1968. NASA was also interested in the results of congressional polls, as evidenced by their collection and distribution of each survey.

26.Favorable polls include Rep. Lee H. Hamilton (D-IN), poll inserted in Congressional Record. April 15, 1969, reprinted in LAR. April 15, 1969; Rep. Carleton J. King (D-NY), poll inserted in Congressional Record. May 20, 1969, reprinted in LAR. May 20, 1969; Rep. J. Glenn Beall, Jr. (R-MD), poll inserted in Congressional Record. May 22, 1969, reprinted in LAR. May 22, 1969. Ambivalent polls include Rep. Charles E. Chamberlain (R-MI), poll inserted in Congressional Record. April 17, 1969, reprinted in LAR. April 17, 1969; Rep. William E. Minshall (R-OH), poll inserted in Congressional Record. May 7, 1969, reprinted in LAR. May 7, 1969.

27.Rep. Morris K. Udall (D-AZ), poll of high school students in Tucson, Arizona, inserted in Congressional Record. May 12, 1969, reprinted in LAR. May 12, 1969; Rep. John R. Dellenback (R-OR), poll inserted in Congressional Record. July 31, 1969, reprinted in LAR. July 31, 1969. See also Rep. James W. Symington (D-MO), poll inserted in Congressional Record. Sept. 9, 1969, reprinted in LAR. Sept. 9, 1969; Rep. Richardson Preyer (D-NC), poll inserted in Congressional Record. Oct. 15, 1969, reprinted in LAR. Oct. 15, 1969; Rep. Henry Helstoski (D-NJ), poll inserted in Congressional Record. Oct. 31, 1969, reprinted in LAR. Oct. 31, 1969.

28.Polls advocating funding cuts include Rep. Philip E. Ruppee (R-MI), poll of 11th District of Michigan inserted in Congressional Record. Aug. 5, 1969, reprinted in LAR. Aug. 5, 1969; Sen. Robert W.

245 Packwood (R-OR), poll inserted in Congressional Record, Oct. 1, 1969, reprinted in LAR, Oct. 1, 1969; Rep. R. Lawrence Coughlin (R-PA), poll of constituents in Thirteenth District of Pennsylvania inserted in Congressional Record, Oct. 1, 1969, reprinted in LAR, Oct. 1, 1969; Rep. Hamilton Fish, Jr. (R-NY), poll of constituents of 28th Congressional district of New York inserted in Congressional Record, Oct. 30, 1969, reprinted in LAR, Oct. 30, 1969; Rep Abner J. Mikva (D-IL), poll of constituents of 2d district of Illinois inserted in Congressional Record, Nov. 12, 1969, reprinted in LAR, Nov. 12, 1969. The only two positive polls for space exploration are Rep. Joseph M. McDade (R-PA), poll of constituents of 10th congressional district of Pennsylvania inserted in Congressional Record, Aug. 8, 1969, reprinted in LAR, Aug. 8-13, 1969; Rep. George E. Brown, Jr. (D-CA) , poll of constituents of 29th district of California inserted in Congressional Record, Aug. 9, 1969, reprinted in LAR, Aug. 8-13, 1969. Suirveys of public opinion on NASA's future programs include Rep. Clark MacGregor (R-MN), poll of Third Congressional District of Minnesota inserted in Congressional Record, Dec. 12, 1969, reprinted in LAR, Dec. 12, 1969; Gallup poll printed in New York Times on Aug. 7, 1969 and reprinted in Congressional Record, House, Aug. 13, 1969, p. H7361; Rep. Frank T. Bow (R-OH), poll of constituents of 16th congressional district of Ohio inserted in Congressional Record, Oct. 16, 1969, reprinted in LAR, Oct. 16, 1969; Rep. Gerald R. Ford (R-MI), poll of constituents of Fifth District of Michigan inserted in Congressional Record, Nov. 6, 1969, reprinted in LAR, Nov. 6, 1969; Rep. John E. Moss (D-CA) , poll inserted in Congressional Record, Dec. 19, 1969, reprinted in LAR, Dec. 19 and 20, 1969.

29.Louis Harris poll results listed in "Newscan," in Space Technology to Benefit Man: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Student Journal 10 (February 1972), 26.

30."General Statement on the NASA Space Flight Program," in 1961 NASA Authorization, Hearings Before the Committee on Science and Astronautics and

246 Subcommittees Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, p. 159; Statement by Dr. Clark Randt, Director, NASA Life Science Program, in U.S. Congress, House, Eighty-Seventh Congress, First Session, on H.R. 3238 and H.R. 6029 (superseded by H.R. 6874), 1962 NASA Authorization. Hearings Before the Committee on Science and Astronautics and Subcommittees Nos. 1. 3. and 4, March 13, 14, 22, 23, April 10, 11, 14, and 17, 1961 [No. 7], Part 1, 156; Rep. Ken Hechler (D-WV), 1962 NASA Authorization, Part 1, 369.

31.Senator Paul H. Douglas (D-IL), comments from the Jan. 26, 1962, meeting of the Joint Senate and House Economic Committee, reprinted in LAR, Jan. 30, 1962; Senator William Proxmire (D-WI), comments from the Congressional Record, August 6, 1962, reprinted in LAR, Aug. 6, 1962; Senator Frank J. Lausche (D- OH), comments from the Congressional Record, Oct. 11, 1962, reprinted in LAR, Oct. 11, 1962; Senator Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME), comments in Congressional Record, Senate, May 8, 1963, p. S7491.

32.Senator Clinton Anderson (D-NM), "Refutation of Senate Republican Policy Committee Report on Space Program," May 27, 1963, in NHRC, Special Communications Staff, Office of Public Affairs, Comment on the National Space Program; Rep. James Symington (D-MO), comments and inclusion of Remarks of Senator Clinton P. Anderson at the 1963 Annual Conference of the Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc., New York City, Nov. 20, 1963), in Congressional Record, House, Dec. 3, 1963, p. H21997; Rep. William K. Van Pelt (R-WI), comments and inclusion of Remarks by George P. Miller at the dedication of the Grumman Space Flight Center, Bethpage, Long Island, Feb. 4, 1963, in Congressional Record, House, Feb. 5, 1963, p. H1758-1759.

33.Representative Charles H. Wilson (D-CA), Remarks in Congressional Record, House, June 13, 1963, p. H1G248; Representative Neil Staebler (D- MI), comments in U.S. Congress, House, Eighty-Eighth Congress, First Session, on H.R. 5466 (superseded by H.R. 7500), 1964 NASA Authorization, Hearings Before the Committee on Science and Astronautics, March 4 and 5, 1963 [No. 3], Part 1, 40-41.

247 34.Rep. Carl B. Albert (D-OK) , remarks in Congressional Record, House, May 15, 1863,p. H8061; Senator Thomas H. Kuchel (R-CA), remarks in Congressional Record, Senate, May 16, 1963, p. S8349; Rep. Donald G. Brotzman (R-CO), extension of remarks in Congressional Recordr j^pendix, p. A3148.

35.Rep. George P. Miller (D-CA), Opening Statement in U.S. Congress, House, Eighty-Seventh Congress, Second Session, on H.R. 10100 (superseded by H.R. 11737), 1963 NASA Authorization. Hearing Before the Committee on Science and Astronautics, Feb. 27, 28, April 12, and May 3, 1962 [No. 2], Part 1, p. 2; Rep. James G. Fulton (R-PA) , insertion of address by Rep. George P. Miller to the National Rocket Club, Washington, D.C., July 16, 1963, in Congressional Record, Appendix, July 17, 1963, p. A4507-4508; Rep. George P. Miller, comments on Aviation Week and Space Technology article entitled, "NASA's Spearhead to Space Creates New Capabilities, Markets," in Congressional Record, Appendix, July 20, 1963, p. A5560; Rep. Edwin B. Dooley (R-NY), remarks in Congressional Record, March 7, 1962, reprinted in LAR. March 7, 1962; Rep. Peter W. Rodino, Jr. (D-NJ), remarks in Congressional Record. March 22, 1962, reprinted in LAR. March 22, 1962.

36.Rep. J. Edward Roush (D-IN), remarks in U.S. Congress, House, Eighty-Ninth Congress, First Session, on H.R. 3730 (superseded by H.R. 7717), 1966 NASA Authorization. Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Advanced Research and Technology of the Committee on Science and Astronautics. March 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, and 18, 1965 [No. 2], Part 4, 33-34; Rep. Don Fuqua (D-FL), Extension of Remarks in Congressional Record, i^pendix, June 8, 1966, reprinted in LAR. June 8, 1966; Rep. F. Edward Hebert (D-LA), Extension of Remarks in Congressional Record. Appendix, December 18, 1967, p. A6312. See also Senator Spessard L. Holland (D-FL), remarks in Congressional Record. Senate, December 14, 1967, p. S18743.

37.Rep. Barber B. Conable, Jr. (R-NY), remarks in 1966 NASA Authorization. Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications of

248 the Committee on Science and Astronautics. Part 3, p. 67; Future National Space Objectives, p. xiii. See also Rep. George P. Miller (R-CA.), extension of remarks. Congressional Record. Appendix, November 5, 1967, p. A 4945.

38.LAR. July 9, 1968. For Walter Mondale's perspective of the space program, see Transcript, Interview with Walter Mondale, WAMÜ Radio Special, "Washington Goes to the Moon," http : //WWW. wamu. org/real/notes/mondale. txt.

39.Rep. Hastings Keith (R-MA), report to constituents inserted in Congressional Record. June 4, 1968, reprinted in LAR. June 4, 1968; Senator Joseph S. Clark (D-PA), remarks in Congressional Record. June 24, 1968, reprinted in LAR. June 24, 1968.

40.Remarks by Rep. Howard W. Pollock (R-AK), Senator Gaylord A. Nelson (D-WI), Senator Walter Mondale (D-MN), Rep. Herbert Tenzer (D-NY), Rep. Paul A. Fino (R-NY), Rep. James H. Scheuer (D-NY), and Rep. Delbert L. Latta (R-OH) in Congressional Record. June 24, 1968, reprinted in LAR. June 24, 1968.

41.Rep. Olin E. Teague (D-TX), remarks in Congressional Record. Extension, May 10, 1968, pp. E4099-4100; Rep. James G. Fulton (R-PA) , insertion of Interview with Olin Teague from Challenge in Congressional Record. Extension, Oct. 14, 1968, p. E9039; Rep. Peter W. Rodino, Jr. (D-NJ), remarks in Congressional Record. Oct. 14, 1968, reprinted in LAR. Oct. 14, 1968.

42.Rep. Lawrence J. Burton (R-UT), remarks in Congressional Record. House, July 24, 1969, pp. H6287-6288; Rep. Robert Price (R-TX), remarks in Congressional Record. House, July 24, 1969, p. H6320; Senator Edward J. Gurney (R-FL), remarks in Congressional Record. Senate, July 28, 1969, p. S8643; Rep. Jeffery Cohelan (D-CA) , remarks in Congressional Record. Extension, July 24, 1969, p. E6276; Rep. Charles H. Wilson (D-CA), remarks in Congressional Record. Extension, Jan. 3, 1969, p.

249 E2; Rep. Burt L. Talcott (R-CA) , remarks in Congressional Record. House, Jan. 9, 1969, p. H172; Rep. Nick Galifianakis (D-NC), remarks in Congressional Record. House, Jan. 9, 1969, p. H173; Rep. Carl B. Albert (D-OK), remarks in Congressional Record. House, July 24, 1969, p. H6286; Rep. Joe L. Evins (D-TN) , remarks in Congressional Record. Extension, July 28, 1969, p. E6299; Rep. Earle Cabell (D-TX), remarks in Congressional Record, Extension, July 31, 1969, p. E6502.

43.Rep. Jeffery Cohelan (D-CA), remarks in Congressional Record. Elxtension, July 24, 1969, p. E6276; Rep. Olin E. Teague (D-TX) , remarks in Congressional Record. Extension, Jan. 9, 1969, p. E160; Rep. Louis Frey, Jr. (R-FL), remarks in Congressional Record. House, Aug. 4, 1969, p. H6791; Senate Resolution 225, Congressional Record. Senate, July 28, 1969, p. S8643; House Resolution 487, Congressional Record. House, July 24, 1969, p. H6285.

44.Rep. John R. Rarick (D-LA), remarks in Congressional Record. House, May 27, 1969, p. H4168; Rep. William G. Bray (R-IN), remarks in Congressional Record. House, April 15, 1969, reprinted in LAR, April 15, 1969. Bray was not successful in his attempt to have the landing site named "Point Eisenhower." Instead, it was called "Tranquility Base."

45.Rep. Donald E. Lukens (R-OH), remarks in Congressional Record, Extension, Nov. 17, 1969, pp. E9687-9689; Rep. Olin E. Teague (D-TX) , remarks in Congressional Record. Extension, Oct. 1, 1969, p. E8006; Senator Edward J. Gurney (R-FL), remarks in Congressional Record. Senate, Sept. 26, 1969, p. S11425. For more congressional discussion of the practical benefits of the American space program, see Space Program Benefits; Report of the Committee on Science and Astronautics, U.S. Congress, House, Ninety-First Congress, Second Session, For the Benefit of All Mankind: A Survey of the Practical Returns from Space Investment. Dec. 7, 1970, Serial R. For more congressional discussion of the philosophical benefits of space exploration, see

250 Rep. R- Lawrence Coughlin (R-PA)^ remarks in Congressional Record, Extension, Aug. 4, 1971, p. E8879; Rep. James C. Corman (D-CA), remarks in Congressional Record, Extension, Aug. 4, 1971, p. E8928; Summary of Taped Interview with Senator Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), May 11, 1971, by Robert Sherrod, in NHRC, Robert Sherrod Apollo Collection, Interviews; Rep. Olin E. Teague, "The Case For Space: Congressman Olin E. 'Tiger" Teague Describes Why America Must Maintain a Strong National Space Program, " in Skyline Magazine, North American Rockwell, March 1972, JSCA, Apollo Program Chronological Files, Box 073-64/65/66.

46.Senator James W. Fulbright (D-AK), remarks in Congressional Record, Senate, Aug. 11, 1969, pp. S9631—9632; Rep. Hastings Keith (R-MA), remarks in Congressional Record. Extension, Aug. 13, 1969, p. E7037; Rep. William F. Ryan (D-NY), remarks in Congressional Record, House, Aug. 13, 1969, p. H7359.

47.Rep. Edward P. Boland (D-MA), remarks in Congressional Record, Jan. 22, 1973, reprinted in LAR. Jan. 22, 1973; Rep. Olin E. Teague (D-TX), remarks in Congressional Record. Jan. 22, 1973, reprinted in LAR. Jan. 22, 1973.

48.Comments by Senator Adlai E. Stevenson (D-IL) printed in Defense/Space Daily. May 17, 1979. See also Senator Robert C. Byrd's (D-WV) comments on the occasion of a visit to the Senate by the astronauts awarded the Congressional Space Medal of Honor, in Congressional Record. Oct. 2, 1978, in NHRC, White House, President Jimmy Carter Files.

49.Senator Harrison H. Schmitt (R-NM), "Long- Range Space Policy Advocated," Aviation Week & Space Technology. Nov. 13, 1978, 63-64.

251 CHAPTER 5

BEYOND OFFICIAL RHETORIC: THE MEDIA, POPULAR

CULTURE, AND THE SPACE FRONTIER

NASA, the presidents, and the Congress all had important incentives for applying frontier rhetoric to the American space program. NASA's motivation was based on the need for funding. Its very purpose was to explore space and therefore the agency required a substantial budget to achieve its mission. Presidents and legislators had other concerns, including the need to balance many competing demands on the national budget and, of course, their desire to be re-elected.

Other groups, including the media, Hollywood, publishers, toy manufacturers, and others, also influenced Americans' views of space. Although these groups had different motivations for supporting space exploration than the federal government, their descriptions of the nation's space efforts were remarkably similar.

252 The Media Helps to Perpetuate the Space-Frontier Mvth

Of all tiie groups that influenced public

perceptions of space, the media was theoretically

independent- Remaining outside of politics,

journalists prided themselves on their objectivity.

They were not driven to protect NASA's budget or its

place within the range of national priorities. In

spite of this difference, the media frequently

employed frontier imagery in descriptions of the space program. Journalists were also caught up in the excitement of the space program in the 1950s and

1960s, and the language that they chose to describe

American space achievements reflected this trend.

Journalists reported the wide spectrum of opinion on the American space program, ranging from enthusiastic justifications to harsh criticisms of the money spent on space. At the same time, newspapers printed editorial commentary on the space program that usually supported NASA's goals. Many journalists used frontier language to persuade their audience of the values of space, rather than objectively presenting

253 both sides of the story. Like NASA administrators,

journalists consistently utilized frontier rhetoric

throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, even as the

space budget drew more criticisms in the later years.^

The media connected astronauts to the frontier myth beginning with John Glenn’s flight in February

1962. The Newport News Times-Herald described Glenn as a "New Frontiersman" who encouraged "fires of patriotism, the pride of American nationalism." The writer believed that this spirit was sadly lacking in the United States. Journalists later connected other astronauts to the nation's frontier heritage as well, describing Virgil Grissom and John W. Young as "trail blazers" and portraying James A. McDivitt and Edward

H. White, II, as a "pair of Western pioneers.

Media references to the American frontier experience went much further than comparisons of astronauts and pioneers. In May 1963, a Hartford

Times editorial explained that one motivation for space exploration was that "the conquest of a new frontier gives point and color to man’s sacrifices for an ideal." Past exploration had strengthened the souls of pioneering Americans, and space would have

254 the same effect oa the nation's spirit. Other journalists reinforced this argument, responding to space critics with the justification that "space is the real new frontier." Space exploration was the modern equivalent of the Lewis and Clark expedition of the early nineteenth century, charting new territory for the United States to conquer in the future.^

With the i^ollo program's success, journalists increased their use of frontier references. The editor of the San Francisco Examiner described Apollo

9 as "pioneering into the unknown." Another journalist referred to the Apollo 10 mission as the

"trail blazer" for future lunar expeditions, marking the path for others to follow. Even as Apollo missions seemed more repetitive, journalists still referred to space as a frontier. An August 1971 editorial in the Huntsville Times declared that although some people were bored by the space program,

"man must explore," while William Safire argued that

Americans must continue to explore space because of the satisfaction that resulted from discovery of the unknown. Newspapers across the country echoed these descriptions of the space program.’

255 The Alexandria Gazette summed up American assumptions about the space frontier in December 1972.

"The United States' achievements in space exploration exemplify the American desire for adventure and our love of seeking the unknown," editors claimed. "It is indicative of the pioneer spirit which lifted an unpretentious colony of thirteen states to a world power and stronghold for freedom and democracy." Many journalists, as well their readers, believed that the nation's frontier experience had made the United

States a great nation by the twentieth century and that space would have a similar effect on the nation's future.^

Journalists also made comparisons between the age of European exploration and NASA's manned space programs. One common theme in these accounts was the relationship between exploratory ventures and their long-term results. Journalists pointed out that many of Columbus's contemporaries did not see the potential benefits of his voyages, but centuries later his legacy was obvious. They predicted that similar benefits would result from space exploration.

"Perhaps there will be great practical benefits hard

256 to foresee," Flora Lewis speculated in The Houston

Post, "as no one foresaw that Columbus' discovery of

a 'westward route to the Indies' would lead to

flourishing new nations." Journalists also pointed

out that it was over a century after Columbus ' s

discovery of the New World before the first English

settlers established colonies in North America. One

New York Times writer believed that it was only a matter of time before Americans began colonizing outer

space, just as Europeans had colonized the New World

after Columbus's voyages.®

Newspapers commonly compared the cost of both

Columbus's voyage and the Apollo program. Accounts described how Queen Isabella of Spain threatened to

sell her royal jewels to obtain the necessary money

for the voyage when King Ferdinand was initially

reluctant to provide funding. Considering the long­ term results of Columbus's discovery of the New World, the reasoning continued, such an extreme action would have been justified. In answer to those people who criticized the cost of Apollo, the media used Isabella as an example. "Considering all the available

257 evidence..., I am now an Isabella man. I cannot agree with, the fearful Ferdinands," one editorial concluded.^

Like other groups within American society, the media believed that the space program would have a significant impact on national character, renewing qualities within American society that had originally developed as a result of earlier frontier exploration.

"American self-confidence has been a driving characteristic and a force in the world for the last

300 years," a San Francisco Chronicle editorial declared. In light of current events that threatened to shatter the nation's confidence, space successes would help to restore that feeling.®

The Apollo missions provided a background for continued media discussions of the influence of frontier exploration on national character. The New

York Times described Apollo 11 as "an inspiring adventure, a testimony not only to man's imagination in amassing knowledge of nature, but to his courage, his perseverance and his indomitable spirit." This idea was a common theme in media coverage of the

American space program, as well as in commentary by

NASA and the federal government. The almost

258 catastrophic results of the Apollo 13 mission surprisingly resulted in similar rhetoric, with editorials cautioning against the United States prematurely ending the Apollo program. To do so, one editorial claimed, would be "unworthy of Americans and

America.

Even more media accounts of the American space program referred to the enormous psychological, intellectual, and spiritual effects of space exploration for the nation. Once again comparing the

Apollo program to Columbus's discovery of the New

World, Washington Star correspondent Eric Sevareid declared that "After the voyage of Columbus the Old

World was never the same, in political, economic, military, social, religious, or intellectual terms."

He predicted the same monumental impact for the lunar program. Other accounts argued that American successes in space allowed the nation to once again feel pride in its heritage and accomplishments. The

Washington Post called the date of the first moon landing "a day for national renewal" that would hopefully "rekindle man's dreams and revive his lagging spirit. " In an era when so many Americans had

259 lost confidence in the nation's ability to solve its

many problems, the space program offered "the

inspiration needed to restore faith in our ability to

overcome advers ity. "

NASA often used words such as "adventure" and

"challenge" to describe the American space effort,

words that also brought to mind frontier exploration

of the nineteenth century, but the media also utilized

these words in space commentaries. Astronauts were

"space adventurers" who were part of an "incredible

j ourney of heroics and hazard in space. " Some

reporters considered space exploration to be the

greatest human adventure ever undertaken. The media was supposed to be objective in its reporting, but in

response to a negative opinion poll in March 1969, in which forty-nine percent of Americans stated that they were opposed to the manned lunar program, one editorial defended the Apollo program as a "grand,

romantic adventure." Although the space program became more routine in the subsequent missions after

Apollo 11, journalists continued to refer to the space program as an "adventure" and a "challenge.

260 The media also described space exploration as a

"conquestr " much as past Americans had "conquered" the western frontier. Defending the space budget, a

Hartford Times editorial argued that the United States could not afford not to conquer space because of the potential benefits of such a venture. One Washington

Post editor defined conquest as the process of learning about a new environment into which humankind seeks to expand. The conquest of space would allow

Americans to have a greater understanding of themselves and their nation.

Magazines also provided journalistic coverage of the space program's progress in the 1960s. After most space accomplishments, magazines ran stories about the mission, often featuring astronauts on the cover.

While a few stories discussed criticisms of space funding, the majority celebrated space exploration.

When editors placed space articles on their covers, they signified that there were no more important or exciting news stories available. Since astronauts were popular public figures, their covers appealed to audiences and encouraged them to buy that particular magazine. As with newspaper accounts of the space

261 program, magazine writers found it difficult to remain objective in reporting their stories.

Magazines were among the first media groups to report on the space program. In the early 1950s,

Collier's ran a series of articles that focused on space exploration. Inviting a number of prominent scientists to contribute to the series, the editors promoted space exploration for a number of reasons, including Cold War concerns and the underlying desire of humankind to explore. Most of the articles focused on the technical aspects of exploring space, but the authors often utilized frontier language to make their points. Collier's was still a little ahead of the times, however, and it was several years before most magazines regularly covered the national space program.“

By the early 1960s, more and more magazines covered the space program. At this point, space exploration was not merely speculation— the Mercury program was in progress, and by 1961 the United States had established a lunar landing goal for the end of the decade. Like newspaper accounts, magazine writers compared astronauts to Christopher Columbus and other

262 past European explorers and referred to space as the

"new frontier." Magazines also invited others, particularly within NASA, to contribute articles. A

1962 Newsweek issue contained a short article about the reasons for space exploration, authored by astronaut John Glenn. If the United States did not proceed with the space program, Glenn argued, it "may never again have a similar chance to demonstrate that we can be the kind of people God intended us to be.

As the first moon landing date came closer, magazine coverage of space increased dramatically.

Time compared the Apollo 8 astronauts to Christopher

Columbus, concluding that after circling the moon for the first time, "America's moon pioneers became the indisputable Men of the Year. " Observing how important space adventures were for American morale, another article claimed, "For the American people, the astronauts' triumph came as a particularly welcome gift after a year of disruption and despond" for a nation "afflicted with some profound malaise of spirit and will." As Apollo 11's liftoff loomed closer. Life columnist Hugh Sidey observed that, for Americans, the frontier had acted historically as a means of

263 strengthening the nation's soul. "Americans in

particular have needed a quest," Sidey commented.

Political Cartoons and Frontier Imagery

Political cartoonists often captured the most

obvious forms of frontier imagery in their depictions

of American space exploration. Just as articles

developed comparisons between space and frontier

exploration and likened astronauts to frontiersmen and

Christopher Columbus, newspaper artists also

incorporated the same themes into their work.

Columbus appeared over and over in depictions of the

space program. In some cases, Columbus and other

historical explorers looked on as the astronauts

accomplished major space feats. The Los Angeles

Herald-Examiner ran a cartoon in December 1968 that

showed Columbus and other explorers saluting the

Apollo 8 astronauts, with the caption, "Now THAT'S a

Voyage of Discovery!" Commemorating the same mission,

an artist for the Philadelphia Sunday Bulletin

portrayed Astronaut Frank Borman instructing Columbus,

264 Ferdinand Magellan, and the Wright Brothers about the

technical aspects of space exploration.^®

Other editorial cartoons showed connections

between the lunar program and Columbus's exploration

of the New World, utilizing images of Columbus's three

ships. One artist drew pictures of three space ships

with the names Santa Maria. Pinta, and Nina. In other

cartoons, silhouettes of Columbus's three ships travel

toward the moon. One of the best examples of the

relationship between Columbus ' s ships and space ships

was a cartoon printed in the Denver Post on July 19,

1969. As a rocket launched Apollo 11, the shadows of

three ships appeared in the waters nearby. The

caption quoted Robert Frost, "'But I have promises to

keep, and miles to go before I sleep," implying that

Americans were living up to Columbus's example.

Political cartoonists also responded to criticisms

of space spending with Columbian imagery, much in the

same way that newspaper articles did. Commenting on

former president Dwight D. Eisenhower's reluctance to

support the Apollo program, one cartoon depicted

Eisenhower as King Ferdinand, complaining to Queen

Isabella, "Sheer waste of money. What'll all this

265 exploration foolishness get us?," as Columbus sailed away to discover the New World. Another artist portrayed Columbus looking down on the United States as protesters asked, "Why venture into the unknown?

Is space 'worth it?'" Criticizing funding for post-

Apollo programs, a cartoon depicted the 1970s space budget sending Columbus off to explore the universe in a rowboat. What success could Americans expect from future space programs under such circumstances?^®

Cartoonists also compared the space program to the nation's westward expansion. Just as previous generations of Americans had travelled to the frontier, modern frontiersmen were going to the moon.

In one cartoon, having arrived at the moon, the astronauts planted a sign that read, "To the Planets—

Or Bust !" A Newport News Daily Press cartoon showed two students day dreaming in class. The first was a student of an earlier generation, who dreamed of travelling west, while the second was a modern student, dreaming of Faith 7. Other artists portrayed rockets as Conestoga wagons and drew Skylab 2 with a banner that read, "Where the West Begins. " Without a

266 doubt, these images encouraged Americans to relate space to their frontier past

Other cartoons depicted popular frontier characters, such as prospectors and cowboys. A March

1965 Washington Post cartoon showed an imaginary picture of the lunar surface, where a crater was really the entrance to a mine. Jerry Doyle of the

Philadelphia Daily News portrayed the "New 'Good Guy' for the New Generation. " A young boy dressed like a cowboy, watching a television western and surrounded by dime novels and comics, looks out the window to see astronaut John Glenn. Other cartoons also contained this image, depicting astronauts as cowboys, sitting astride their rockets and lassoing the moon.^°

Interestingly, a few cartoonists addressed the more controversial aspects of frontier exploration in their art. In these cases, artists chose to depict the negative consequences of expansion and "conquest," implying that, if there was life elsewhere in the universe, Americans should consider whether they would treat them better than they had treated the Native

Americans. For example, one cartoon showed two space aliens sitting on the moon. One turned to the other

267 and warned, "'Remember, when they land don't show them

how to plant corn or build wigwams. ' " Another artist

showed a Native American demonstrating outside of a

launch site with a sign that read "Martians Beware."

A similar cartoon depicted a discussion between two

Native Americans on the subject of the Apollo program.

One man said to the other, "'They must figure the

Indians have some more land up there ! ' " These more

critical cartoons corresponded to historiographical

trends of the era, which sometimes focused on the previously ignored plight of Native Americans.

Although these themes were occasionally present in

political cartoons, they were not nearly as common as

the other types of frontier imagery.

Political cartoons reinforced the message of written editorials, often including the same themes such as the correlation between past exploration and the space program. Both often utilized frontier language and imagery, such as conestoga wagons, trail blazers, frontiersmen, and cowboys. Both also incorporated the Columbus analogy into their justifications of space exploration. What made political cartoons unique, however, was their ability

268 to convey these ideas more succinctly than larger printed articles.

Popular Culture Emphasizes the Excitement of Space

Americans received information about the nation's space program from a variety of sources, including the media and the federal government, but space discussions were not limited to these groups. Popular culture, including fiction and nonfiction literature, toys, television, and movies, also influenced

Americans. Usually these sources supported NASA's arguments about the importance of the space frontier.

Unlike speeches, newspapers, and other items that had more limited audiences, popular sources had the potential to reach larger portions of the American population. Popular sources worked in combination with media accounts, NASA, the presidents, and legislators to increase enthusiasm for the American space program. Museums also provided a bridge between official space rhetoric and the general public, presenting information about the space program that was both entertaining and educational.

269 A number of books published in the 1960s and 1970s influenced the way in which Americans thought about the space program. The media sponsored several books that celebrated the nation's space accomplishments.

Scholars and others interested in the space program also wrote many books, and many astronauts wrote about their experiences as well. All of these books, regardless of the author, tended to show the American space program in a positive light.

In 1962, the editors of Fortune magazine published one of the earliest media-sponsored books on the space program. Although the book concentrated on the connection between business and space, frontier themes emerged in the introduction. Space exploration was an

"adventure" and "conquest," something that would

"affect the human spirit." The book's contributors also argued that exploration of the space frontier would benefit the nation's economy and industry. The

New York Times also published a book on the space program in 1962 that described NASA's plans for the

Apollo missions. Echoing the themes present in other media accounts of the space program, the book connected space to Christopher Columbus's achievements

270 and other types of frontier language. While the

authors addressed some criticisms of the space program, the larger argument supported NASA's goals.

The first moon landing provided the opportunity

for others to publish books on the space program, this

time focusing on the process used to achieve success.

U.S. Mews & World Report published U.S. on the Moon:

What It Means to Us. Responding to the many criticisms of the space program, the book's editors chose to explain why the Apollo program was important to the nation. In the first chapter, the writers put the space program in the context of the Cold War, but admitted that, even without Soviet competition, "man undoubtedly would have been led by curiosity and a sense of adventure to land on the moon." The book echoed NASA's claims of the important benefits of space exploration for the nation, speculating on the important "spinoffs" that would result from the lunar program. The New York Times celebrated the first moon landing with another book on the space program. We

Reach the Moon. In response to the question, "What did it all mean?," author John Noble Wilford declared that "Man may now see the moon as a new world to

271 explore or even colonize y a new frontier for his restless, curious mind."^^

Astronauts' accounts of the space program flourished, echoing familiar themes of conquest and frontier exploration. These books concentrated primarily on how NASA accomplished specific missions, often incorporating flight transcripts to create a chronological narrative of their experiences, but even the most technical account addressed the philosophical significance of what they had achieved. A new wave of memoirs in the late 1980s and 1990s supplemented these early firsthand accounts, as the twentieth and then the twenty-fifth anniversaries of Apollo 11 passed.

Beginning in the 1950s, many other popular books that speculated about the future of space exploration emerged. The Collier's series of articles on the space program were published in a single volume, titled The Space Frontier, in 1952. Wernher von Braun later used the Columbus analogy to explain why

Americans should explore space in First Men to the

Moon. Willy Ley, author of a number of books on space exploration, wrote a series of four children's books published in the late 1950s under the title. Adventure

272 in Space. Each book concentrated on a particular aspect of the future space program, but the ideas of adventure and the frontier were common themes in all four books. These early books often sounded more like science fiction than fact, as they speculated on the future rather than discussing current programs.

Authors continued to focus on the space program throughout the 1960s. Just as NASA argued that space exploration would lead to enormous benefits for the

United States, including many social, economic, and political benefits, authors of Outer Space: Prospects for Man and Society believed that a number of frontier benefits would result from the space program. The authors cautioned that there could also be negative consequences of exploration but focused mostly on the positive effects. A political scientist at the

University of Iowa, Vernon Van Dyke, also wrote a contemporary study of the space program, concentrating on the political motivations driving exploration, including chapters, "Economic and Social Progress" and

"National Pride: The Achievement Motive." As the

Apollo program continued, bookstores carried more works that focused on astronauts and space

273 exploration. Although frontier references were sometimes subtle, they were present throughout the majority of these works.

Apollo 11 *s success provided the setting for a number of literary accounts of the space program. In

Appointment on the Moon. Richard S . Lewis traced the history of the American space program from the earliest satellites through the Apollo program and speculated on the future of the nation ' s space programs. Commenting on the significance of space exploration, Lewis connected space to the nation's frontier past, arguing that space was man's destiny.

He explained Americans' motivations as "the compulsion to seek and explore." Children's books about the

Apollo program also stressed these themes. The Moon

Explorers narrated the events surrounding the first moon landing and then speculated about space exploration of the future. Future explorers, according to author Tony Simon, would continue to go to the moon and possibly other planets, "conquering" outer space and, in the long term, setting up colonies. We Came in Peace went even further in its use of the frontier myth. The book described space as

274 "an awesome ocean to cross in an effort to find out more about himself; a prairie hostile and uncaring for him or his kind." In spite of the challenges of space, the author contended, "the space pioneer is driven by the same irresistible urge that sent

Columbus across uncharted seas and frontiersmen to distant mountain peaks.

Even many space critics discussed NASA's use of frontier language in their books. Erlend A. Kennan and Edmund H. Harvey, Jr., spent an entire chapter addressing how the Columbus analogy and other exploration myths were not applicable to space exploration. Claims that the space program would have numerous side benefits were "grossly exaggerated," according to these authors. Although the moon landing

"would unquestionably uplift the spirit and reveal surprises," Kennan and Harvey continued, NASA would fail "to pave the straight and narrow road to a better tomorrow." Other authors echoed these arguments, even claiming that many of the "benefits" resulting from the space program were really not beneficial to the

United States at all.^®

275 Television shows and movies also used frontier language to describe space. In the 1960s many

Americans watched the television show Star Trek, with its opening line, "Space...the final frontier."

Producer Gene Rodenberry eventually developed several

Star Trek spinoff series and laovies that also incorporated frontier rhetoric. Starting in 1977, the movie Star Wars and its sequels also utilized frontier imagery, with story lines similar to those of B-

Westerns of the 1950s, with only the setting changed.

These popular television shows and movies had audiences in the millions. Hollywood Westerns and other media bombarded Americans with the idea that the frontier had been important in the nation ' s past and could be once again through space exploration.^®

A number of other popular media items, such as toys and comic books, supplemented the use of frontier imagery in movies and television shows. Both Star

Trek and Star Wars marketed a large number of toys, as well as comic books and fiction paperbacks, but there were also a number of other items with space-western themes that targeted children in the 1950s and 1960s.

Some were based in science fiction, but others

276 incorporated actual events. Children's interest in

the space program stimulated the sale of other types

of space memorabilia, including rocket banks, G.I. Joe

figures, and astronaut Barbies.

Television programs, including news specials and

documentaries, also incorporated frontier descriptions

of the space program. NBC televised a children's

special in 1970 titled, "The Inner World of Outer

Space. " In the show, a young boy named Michael

experienced several adventures as he learned about the

American space program. At the Smithsonian

Institution, he meets a man "rich with memories of the

frontiers crossed in his day." While talking to this

man, he was magically transported to the Kennedy Space

Center to learn more about space exploration. The

basis of the rest of the show was that space

exploration of the future could be just as exciting as

past frontier exploration. Another network program,

"Space in the Age of Aquarius," also incorporated

frontier rhetoric to justify the space program. In

answer to critics who believed that too much money was being spent on space, guest Jonathan Winters gave examples of King Ferdinand of Spain not wanting to

277 finance Columbus ' s voyage and Daniel Webster, "who resented financing exploration of the West.

Museums can provide another example of the intersection between official rhetoric and popular beliefs about space exploration. The National Air and

Space Museum is one illustration of this process. In the early years of the space program, the Smithsonian

Institution did not have a separate museum for aeronautical and astronautical artifacts. Space exhibits were located with other technological displays, but even without a special building for space artifacts, many visitors came to see these exhibits. With the space program's success in the

1960s, more Americans put pressure on Congress to build a separate Air and Space Museum. Senate hearings in 1964 about the museum's funding provided an opportunity to establish the significance of space exploration for the American people. A number of people had submitted letters explaining why it was important to have a separate museum for aeronautical and space artifacts, including leading figures within the Smithsonian Institution and members of the Senate

Committee on Rules and Administration. These

278 justifications all had one aspect in common. Such a

museum was necessary, according to Senator Claiborne

Pell (D-RI), "because of the education and inspiration

properly displayed exhibits can provide, and because

of our country's illustrious record in aeronautical

and space pioneering.

Congress did not settle the issue of funding for

the new museum until the early 1970s. Speaking to the

Senate Committee on Rules and Administration in 1971,

historian Daniel J. Boorstin described American

history as "the fulfillment of the exploring spirit."

Exploration was important for the American spirit,

because "much of the greatness, the optimism, the

energy and the boldness of our country has come from

this peculiar way of growing." Thus history had been

essential in creating a unique American identity.

Boorstin also connected past frontier exploration with

the nation's present and future, arguing that "much of

the vitality of American civilization in our century-

wili depend on our ability to translate this exploring

spirit, this enthusiasm for the unknown into later

twentieth-century terms." A National Air and Space

Museum would enable the nation to accomplish this

279 challenger allowing Americans to connect their historical and future experiences.^^

Once the National Air and Space Museum was completed, the museum staff's next step was to create exhibits that educated and inspired Americans, placing space exploration in the context of the nation ' s past frontier experiences. The Apollo program exhibit was one place where the staff developed these themes. The exhibit was titled, "Manned Space Flight to the Moon."

Although the Apollo program was "only one part of the many-faceted story of space exploration," the concept script explained, "flight to the Moon is particularly dramatic, for man himself is risked against the unknown." The exhibit included a number of space artifacts, but also some important text, such as statements by John F. Kennedy about the decision to go to the moon, descriptions of the astronauts ' character, and the program's "impact on civilization, philosophy, religion, [and] the arts." Other space exhibits had similar justifications.^^

It is difficult to judge the extent to which exhibits ' messages about the importance of space exploration influenced visitors to the museum, but

280 museum officials hired a marketing research firm to evaluate visitors* impressions. The survey included questions about reasons for visiting and what was learned from specific exhibits- Of all the exhibits included in the survey, "Apollo to the Moon" had the highest results for three categories: time spent, desire to revisit, and incentive to learn more.

Sixty-six percent of visitors believed that the exhibit "Rocketry and Space" explained that "fantasy and science fiction often become reality." Visitors often commented that the exhibits made them feel that they were more a part of the national space effort.

They also appreciated that the Apollo exhibit explained all of the side benefits of space exploration for life back on Earth.3*

Even more recent museum attractions have included frontier themes. In 1986 the National Air and Space

Museum sponsored the filming of a new IMAX movie to premier in the museum's own theater. The film's theme was exploration, and the assumption behind the entire story line was that humans inherently need to explore.

Prospective titles included "The Explorers !" and "New

Worlds to Explore." The film's purpose was to trace

281 the history of exploration from the first European explorers to the New World to space exploration of the twentieth century. In honor of the five hundredth anniversary of Columbus's discovery of the New World, the museum created a special exhibit titled, "Where

Next Columbus?" Once again, the display's main focus was the history of exploration, connecting space to

Columbus and other past explorers. Placed in a historical context, the exhibit focused "on motives for modern space exploration, some of the options and choices in such an enterprise, and the challenges— physical, technical, and social— facing space explorers.

Conclusion

Americans were bombarded from all sides by frontier justifications of the space program. On the one hand, official sources, such as NASA, the

Presidents, and the Congress, all utilized frontier rhetoric when discussing the importance of space exploration and when determining NASA's budgets and goals. On the other hand, other groups also employed

282 frontier language. In spite of the media's claims to objectivity, journalists often became space advocates, working as hard as NASA administrators to explain why the United States should venture into space. Since the 1950s, popular literature also advocated expansion into the space frontier. Hollywood studios utilized frontier imagery, both in terms of Westerns and space stories, to sell movie tickets and increase television ratings, but they inadvertently fed basic beliefs about the importance of the nation's past as well.

These sources worked with official space rhetoric to convince Americans of the space program's importance.

In spite of the overwhelming use of frontier rhetoric by all of these groups, the question still remains: how successful were they in "selling" the American people on the importance of the space frontier?

283 Endnotes

1.Newspaper coverage of different perspectives of the space program was widespread. Very often the people quoted in articles incorporated frontier rhetoric to support their arguments. For examples of how legislators were quoted in articles, see "Sisk Declares Public Opinion Sets Space Pace," The Pueblo (Colorado) Star Journal, Dec. 31, 1959; "Cash Award Proposed For Spacemen," Santa Monica Evening Outlook. May, 18, 1961. For examples of how presidents were quoted in articles, see Carroll Kilpatrick, "Detente Role Is Defended By President," Washington Post. March 21, 1974; Robert B. Semple, Jr., "President Orders the Development of a Space Shuttle," The New York Times. Jan. 6, 1972; Reg Murphy, "The New World We've Discovered," The Atlanta Constitution, May 20, 1969. For examples of how journalists quoted NASA officials, see Mark S. Watson, "The Space Outlook," Baltimore Sun. Jan. 9, 1960; Thomas O'Toole, "This Week— Mankind's Greatest Leap Into Space: U.S. Astronauts Set Out Saturday on Voyage Around Moon," Washington Post. Dec. 15, 1968; "Apollo 8 Likened to 1492 Mission," The New York Times. Dec. 19, 1968. For examples of how journalists quoted scientists, see "Moon Men in Ten Years, CAP Told," San Francisco Chronicle. May 14, 1961; "Scientists Endorse Exploration of Space," Washington Post. Aug. 7, 1961. Journalists did not ignore critics of the space program. For examples of media coverage of space program critics, see Alton Blakeslee, "At $70 Million a Round Trip How Many Voyages to Moon Are Enough?," The Huntsville Times. April 5, 1970; Jeffrey St. John, "Confusion in American Space Effort: No Apologies Necessary," Los Angeles Times. April 9, 1972; Edwin McDowell, "Can Man Turn His Back on Space?," The Wall Street Journal. April 21, 1972; "Men of the Year," Time. Jan. 3, 1969, pp. 10-12; "Have We Collected Enough Rocks?," The Miami News, April 29, 1972; Stuart H. Loory, "Are We Wasting Billions in Space?," The Saturday Evening Post. Sept. 14, 1963. For a journalist's perspective of media coverage of the space program, see Transcript, Interview with Walter Cronkite, WAMU Radio special, "Washington Goes to the Moon,"

284 http://www.wamu.org/real/notes/cronkite.txt.

2."Glenn Flight Means Many Things," Times- Herald. Newport News, Virginia, Feb. 21, 1962; "Exploring God's Stature," The Evening Star. Washington, D.C., March, 24, 1965; "Space Pioneers Soon May Look Like Old West," The Evening Star, June 4, 1965. See also "'Go' Signal for Space," The Washington Post. May 17, 1963; "Astronauts Can't Shave for 4 Days," The Evening Bulletin. Philadelphia, June 5, 1965; "The Space Pace," The Washington Daily News, Sept. 16, 1966.

3."Betting on a Good Thing," Hartford Times, May 16, 1963; "Program No Boondoggle," Washington Star, May 27, 1963; "The Flight of Apollo 12," Washington Post. November 15, 1969.

4."Step into Space, " San Francisco Examiner, March 2, 1969; "The Trail is Marked," The Washington Post. May 27, 1969; "'Man Must Explore,'" The Huntsville Times. Aug. 1, 1971; William Safire, "Because It's There," New York Times. Dec. 19, 1974. See also "A Trail That Will Stand Forever," The Washington Post. July 25, 1969; "Step in Space," Los Angeles Evening and Sunday Herald Examiner. Feb. 27, 1969; "The Lunar Lessons of Apollo 9," The New Haven Register. March 4, 1969; "Shared Honors for Space Pioneers," The Plain Dealer. Cleveland, July 19, 1969; "In Space, As On Earth, It's Hard To Be Perfect," Philadelphia Inquirer. April 29, 1972; "The Travels of Apollo," Christian Science Monitor. Dec. 21, 1972.

5."In a Blaze of Glory and Triumph," The Alexandria Gazette. December 4, 1972.

6.Flora Lewis, "The Telescopes Turn Earthward," Houston Post. Dec. 27, 1968; "Return to the Moon," The New York Times. Nov. 15, 1969. See also "Apollo: The Beginning of an Endless Era," Washington Post. July 22, 1969; Flora Lewis, "Man Vanquishes Outer Space, But Not His Errant Self," The Evening Bulletin. Philadelphia, Dec. 26, 1968; Neal Stanford, "Space Business Gobbles Dollars," The Christian Science Monitor. June 5, 1964; "Why

285 Explore Space?," The News. Berea, Ohio, June 13, 1963; "Moonstruck," The Washington Post, March 25, 1965; David Lawrence, "Moon Feat Unparalleled in Man's History," Houston Chronicle, July 22, 1969; "Apollo 11, Flight to a Mew Age," The Plain Dealer. Cleveland, July 14, 1969; "As the Apollo Missions End," St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Dec. 5, 1972; Holmes Alexander, "The World of Space Awaits New Columbus," Los Angeles Times, Oct. 1, 1962.

7.Lt. Gen. Ira C. Eaker, USAF, Retired, "Columbus and the Moon," San Dieao Union. Sept. 22, 1963. See also "Queen Isabella's Jewels," The Boston Globe. July 17, 1969; "Half Way To the Moon," Chicago Sun-Times. Dec. 19, 1968; "Victory on Columbus Day," The Plain Dealer. Cleveland, Oct. 12, 1968; "The Saturn and the Santa Maria," Chicago Tribune. July 18, 1969; "Columbuses of Space," New York Times. Dec. 22, 1968.

8."The American Man In Space," San Francisco Chronicle. May 7, 1961; James B. Reston, "John Glenn and a New Nobility," San Francisco Chronicle. Feb. 26, 1962.

9."The Week of the Moon," New York Times. July 13, 1969; "For Apollo 13— Thank God," New York Daily News. April 18, 1970; "Now, Get These Men Home," New York Daily News. April 18, 1970.

10.Eric Sevareid, "Space To Transform Society," Washington Star. May 28, 1963; David Lawrence, "Moon Feat Unparalleled in Man's History," Houston Chronicle. July 22, 1969; "One Small Step— One Giant Leap," Washington Post. July 21, 1969; "There's Hope in Space," Today. Oct. 9, 1968. See also "The Lessons of Apollo," The Philadelphia Evening Bulletin. July 22, 1969; Flora Lewis, "Moon and the Human Paradox," Houston Chronicle. July 22, 1969; Thomas O'Toole, "Landing on Moon Just Might Turn Men's Minds From War," Washington Post. March 26, 1969; "Apollo 16: A Tribute," San Jose Mercury. April 24, 1972; "Apollo 15's Message," The Philadelphia Evening Bulletin. Aug. 3, 1971.

286 11."Cost of the Space Program Justified," Life, May 17, 1963; Earl Obeli, "This Incredible Journey of Heroics and Hazard," Mew York Herald Tribune. June 3, 1965; "The Greatest Adventure," Mew York Times, July 16, 1969; "Why Go to the Moon?," The Birmingham Mews, March 5, 1969; "America's Future in Space," Chicago Tribune, Dec. 3, 1972; "Lunar Safari," Mew York Times, Aug. 1, 1971. See also "Another Space Adventure Begins," The Denver Post, Dec. 6, 1965; Flora Lewis, "Man Vanquishes Outer Space, But Mot His Errant Self," The Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, Dec. 26, 1968; "The Great Adventure," The Milwaukee Journal, July 15, 1969; "A Path, Not an End, " The Washington Post. July 16, 1969; "The Word is Adventure," The Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, Nov. 18, 1969.

12."Betting on a Good Thing," Hartford Times, May 16, 1963; "Conquest," The Washington Post, May 16, 1963; Erwin D. Canham, "Space— In Hearts of Men," Christian Science Monitor. Aug. 24, 1965. See also Holmes Alexander, "The World of Space Awaits New Columbus," Los Angeles Times. Oct. 1, 1962; Meal Stanford, "U.S. Widens Door to Space Conquest," Christian Science Monitor, Dec. 23, 1965; "Lesson From Space," The Washington Post, March 18, 1966; "More Than a Spectacular," Houston Chronicle, Dec. 27, 1968; "The Space Challenge," Mew York Times, June 3, 1966.

13.For more discussion of the Collier's articles on space exploration, see ch. 2, fns. 1 and 2.

14."From Russia's Sputnik to America's Schirra, Five Years of the Space Age," Newsweek, Special Issue: The Space Age, Oct. 8, 1962, p. 23; "'We did it'— Nose—to-Mose in Orbit for a Space First," Business Week, Dec. 18, 1965; John Glenn, "Why Go? Astronaut John Glenn's Answer," Newsweek, Special Issue: The Space Age, Oct. 8, 1962, p. 88.

15."Men of the Year," Time, Jan. 3, 1969; Hugh Sidey, "Tossing Our Hats Over the Space Wall, " Life. June 6, 1969. See also Thomas Gordon Plate, "Team Effort," Newsweek, July 7, 1969; "Into the Depths of Space," Time, Dec. 27, 1968, pp. 8-10; James R.

287 Shepley, Letter from the Publisher, Time, July 18, 1969; "A New World," Time, July 18, 1969, pp. 18-19; "Apollo's Return: Triumph Over Failure," Time, April 27, 1970, p. 13; Hugh Sidey, "Marshaling the Good Guys," Life, Aug. 21, 1970.

16.Political Cartoon captioned, "Now THAT'S a Voyage of Discovery1," Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, Dec. 29, 1968; Political Cartoon captioned, "'...then at 2800 MPH we moved from lunar orbit towards the sphere of gravitational influence,'" The Sunday Bulletin. Philadelphia, Dec. 29, 1968. See also Political Cartoon, The Minneapolis Tribune, July 15, 1969; Political Cartoon, The Kansas Citv Times, July 24, 1969; Political Cartoon captioned, "Still Probing the Unknown," Chicago Tribune, Oct. 12, 1968; Political Cartoon, The Atlanta Journal, May 19, 1969; Political Cartoon, Times-Herald, Newport News, Virginia, July 15, 1969; Political Cartoon captioned, "For All Men Who Were First," The Minneapolis Tribune, July 22, 1969.

17.Dave Gerard, "Citizen Smith" cartoon, Washington Star, Aug. 25, 1969; Political Cartoon, The Atlanta Constitution, July 16, 1969; Political Cartoon captioned, "'But I have promises to keep, and miles to go before I sleep'— Robert Frost," Denver Post, July 19, 1969.

18.Political Cartoon captioned, "'Sheer waste of money. What'll all this exploration foolishness get us?'," The Washington Post, April 9, 1963; Political Cartoon captioned, "Twentieth century question," Los Angeles Times. Oct. 18, 1964; Political Cartoon captioned, "The Santa Maria," Independent, Long Beach, California, Jan. 22, 1971. See also Political Cartoon captioned, "'$26,000?!...Man Could Go To The Moon For That!'," Baltimore Sun, Oct. 12, 1961.

19.Political Cartoon, "To the Planets— Or Bust!," Houston Chronicle, July 22, 1969; Political Cartoon, "The Day Dreamer Up To Date," Daily Press, Newport News, May 18, 1963; Political Cartoon, "'They Went Thataway,'" Washington Post, Dec. 30, 1960; Political Cartoon, "Alan Rides Again!," Star-

2 8 8 Telegram, Fort Worth, Texas, July 27, 1973.

20.Political Cartoon, The Washington Post, March 25, 1965; Jerry Doyle, Political Cartoon, "New 'Good Guy' For the New Generation," Philadelphia Daily News. Feb. 1962; Political Cartoon, "Heading for the Last Roundup," The San Diego Union. Nov. 6, 1968; Political Cartoon, "Hitching Post," The Atlanta Constitution. June 9, 1965.

21. Political Cartoon, " ' Remember, when they land don't show them how to plant corn or build wigwams," The Evening Star, Washington, D.C., July 3, 1969; Political Cartoon, "Martians Beware," Washington. D.C.. News. March 28, 1968; Cartoon Bug, Washington. D.C.. News. Dec. 14, 1971.

22.Duncan Norton-Taylor, "The Biggest Leap," in The Space Industry: America's Newest Giant, ed. by the editors of Fortune (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1962), viii; Richard Witkin, "We Are Going," in America's Race For the Moon: The New York Times Storv of Project Aoollo. ed. by Walter Sullivan (New York: Random House, 1962), 7- 14; Richard Witkin, "Moon Pioneers— Selection and Training," in America's Race For the Moon. 77-78; Richard Witkin, "Pros and Cons," in America's Race For the Moon. 146-152.

23.U.S. News & World Report editors, U.S. on the Moon: What It Means to Us (London: Collier- Macmillan, Ltd., 1969), 32, 145; John Noble Wilford, We Reach the Moon: The New York Times Storv of Man's Greatest Adventure (New York: Bantam Books, 1969), 288. See also John Barbour, ed., Footprints on the Moon: Bv the Writers and Editors of the Associated Press (n.p.: The Associated Press, 1969).

24.M. Scott Carpenter, et. al.. We Seven (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1962); Edwin E. Aldrin, Jr., with Wayne Warga, Return to Earth (New York: Random House, 1973) ; Neil Armstrong, et. al.. First Men on the Moon: A Vovage with Neil Armstrong. Michael Collins, and Edwin E. Aldrin. Jr. (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1970); Michael Collins, Carrying the Fire: An Astronaut's Journeys (New

289 York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1974). Books published in the late 1980s and 1990s include Jim Lovell and Jeffrey BCluger, Lost Moon: The Perilous Voyage of Aoollo 13 {New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1994); Michael Collins, Mission to Mars: An Astronautes Vision of Our Future in Space (New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1990); Donald K. "Deke" Slayton, with Michael Cassutt, Deke! U.S. Manned Space: From Mercury to the Shuttle (New York: Tom Doherty Associates, Inc., 1994); Buzz Aldrin and Malcolm McConnell, Men From Earth (New York: Bantam Books, 1989); Alan Shepard and Deke Slayton, Moon Shot: The Inside Storv of America's Race to the Moon (Atlanta: Turner Publishing, Inc., 1994; Neil Armstrong, Edwin Aldrin, and Michael Collins, The First Lunar Landing: 20th Anniversary (Washington, DC: NASA, Office of Public Affairs, 1989) .

25.Joseph Kaplan, et. al.. The Space Frontier (New York: The Viking Press, 1952; Wernher von Braun, First Men to the Moon (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1958; Willy Ley, Adventure in Space: Man-Made Satellites (Poughkeepsie, NY: Guild Press, 1958); Willy Ley, Adventure in Space: Space Pilots (Poughkeepsie, NY: Guild Press, 1958); Willy Ley, Adventure in Space: Space Stations (Poughkeepsie, NY: Guild Press, 1958); Willy Ley, Adventure in Space: Space Travel (Poughkeepsie, NY: Guild Press, 1958). See also Willy Ley, Rockets and Space Travel: The Future of Flight Bevond the Stratosphere (New York: The Viking Press, 1948); Willy Ley, The Conquest of Space (New York: The Viking Press, 1949) ; Arthur C. Clarke, The Exploration of Space (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1951).

26.The American Assembly, Columbia University, Outer Space: Prospects for Man and Society (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1962); Vernon Van Dyke, Pride and Power: The Rationale of the Space Program (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1964); Donald W. Cox, America's Explorers of Space (Maplewood, NJ: Hamond Inc., 1967); Wernher von Braun and Frederick I. Ordway, III, History of Rocketry & Space Travel, rev. ed. (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1969). See also Jay Holmes,

290 on the Moon; The Enterprise of the Sixties (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1952); Edwin Diamond, The Rise and Fall of the Space Aae (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1964); Richard M. Skinner and William Leavitt, eds.. Speaking of Space: The Best from Space Digest (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1962) ; William Shelton, American Space Exploration: The First Decade (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1967); Bruce Mazlish, ed.. The Railroad and the Space Program: An Exploration in Historical Analogy (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1965).

27.Richard S. Lewis, Appointment on the Moon (New York: Ballantine Books, 1969), 540; Tony Simon, The Moon Explorers (New York: Scholastic Book Services, 1970); We Came In Peace: The Story of Man In Space (San Rafael, CA: Classic Press, Inc., 1969), 8. This type of language continued in literary discussions of the future of the American space program as well. See L. B. Taylor, Jr., For All Mankind: America's Space Programs of the 1970s and Bevond (New York: E.P. Dutton & Co., Inc., 1974) .

28.Erlend A. Kennan and Edmund H. Harvey, Jr., Mission to the Moon: A Critical Examination of NASA and the Space Program (New York: William Morrow & Co., Inc., 1969), 234, 235; W.L. Crum, Lunar Lunacy and Other Commentaries (Philadelphia: Dorrance & Company, 1965), 42-45; Amitai Etzioni, The Moon- Doaale: Domestic and International Implications of the Space Race (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1964). See also Transcript, Interview with Amitai Etzioni, WAMÜ Radio Special, "Washington Goes to the Moon," http://www.wamu.org/real/notes/etzioni.txt.

29.For more discussion of the impact of Star Trek and Star Wars, as well as other television shows and movies, on American opinions of space exploration, see Michael A.G. Michaud, Reaching for the High Frontier: The American Pro-Space Movement, 1972-84 (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1986), 127-131; William S. Bainbridge, "The Impact of Science Fiction on Attitudes Toward Technology, " in

291 Science Fiction and Space Futures, ed. by Eugene M. Emme (San Diego: Américain Astronautical Society, 1982): 121-135; William S. Bainbridge, The Spaceflight Revolution: A Sociological Study (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1976); Howard E. McCurdy, Space and the American Imagination (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1997), 103.

30.Concept Script for NBC Television special, "The Inner World of Outer Space," televised in 1970, in Smithsonian Institution Archives (hereafter referred to as SIA), Record Unit 398, Box 50; Judy Bachrach, "Columbus did not fall off, but maybe.. ., " The Baltimore Sun. April 14, 1972. See also "The Today Show Looks at Ten Years of Space Exploration," Interviews by Hugh Downs (NBC) with Col. John Glenn, Astronaut, Francis Keppel, Former Assistant Secretary of Education, and Karl G. Harr, Jr., Chairman and President of General Learning Corporation and President of the Aerospace Industries Association," in VA Tech, Evert B. Clark Papers.

31.U.S. Congress, Senate, Eighty-Eighth Congress, Second Session, on S. 2602, A Bill to Amend Public Law 85-935, Relating to the National Air Museum of the Smithsonian Institution, Smithsonian Institution (National Air and Space Museum): Hearing Before the Subcommittee on The Smithsonian Institution of the Committee on Rules and Administration. June 22, 1964, p. 10. See also pp. 4, 13-15, 22, and 15-26.

32.Daniel J. Boorstin, "How Exploring Space Helps Us to Discover America, " statement to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, 1971, in SIA, Record Unit 398, Box 58. The Smithsonian Institution co-sponsored a seminar with NASA titled "Outlook for Space" from September 30 to October 5, 1974, as the National Air and Space Museum was being completed. Smithsonian Institution Secretary S. Dillon Ripley once again brought up the significance of the museum for the nation in his opening remarks. See S. Dillon Ripley, "Welcoming Statement," "Outlook for Space," September 30-0ctober 5, 1974,

292 Hammersmith Farm, Newport, Rhode Island, in SIA, Record Unit 306, Box 15. Museum Director Michael Collins, former Apollo 11 astronaut, explained the significance of space artifacts to Americans in a letter to NASA Assistant Administrator for Public Affairs, John P. Donnelly: "We believe that the space exhibits will be a powerful statement of the success and accomplishments of the national space program." See Michael Collins, Director, to John P. Donnelly, 17 April 1975, in SIA, Record Unit 306, Box 3, Michael Collins Papers.

33.Concept script for Thematic Unit, "Manned Flight to the Moon," in SIA, Record Unit 398, Box 21, Jonathan Karas Papers. See also Concept Script for Thematic Unit, "Your Future in Space," in SIA, Record Unit 348, Box 13; "Report of Exhibits Study Group to the Executive Committee," 28 November 1972, in SIA, Record Unit 306, Box 9; Concept Script for Thematic Unit, "Flight in the Arts," in SIA, Record Unit 306, Box 2. Descriptions of all of the permanent and some temporary space exhibits are included in C.D.B. Bryan, The National Air and Space Museum, Volume II, Space: From Earth to the Stars (New York: Peacock Press/Bantam Books, 1982.

34.Yankelovich, Skelly, and White, Inc., "Visitors' Reactions to the NASM and the Individual Exhibits," November 1977, in SIA, Record Unit 348, Box 13.

35.Imax film concept for exploration theme, January 1986, in SIA, Record Unit 343, Box 5; Valerie Neal, ed., Where Next Columbus?: The Future of Space Exploration (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 3.

293 CONCLUSION

Historically/ Americans have identified themselves with their frontier heritage. Throughout the course

of the nation's history, frontier expansion had been

a unifying factor for Americans. Even if many chose

not to go westward, they believed that they had the

opportunity to do so and they lived vicariously

through accounts of others' experiences. Americans had come to believe a mythological characterization of

the frontier experience; even if that depiction was

not completely accurate, it still defined attitudes

towards the West and the nation as a whole. People

like John L. O'Sullivan and Frederick Jackson Turner helped to put Americans' convictions about their heritage in a spiritual and historical context.

According to the tenets of Manifest Destiny, God had

chosen the United States to be unique within the world. Much as missionaries traveled to non-Western regions of the Earth to reform the "heathen,"

294 Americans expanded territorially across the continent

to spread the benefits of democracy. Turner put the

nation's power and greatness in a historical

framework, arguing that frontiers had allowed

Americans to develop a distinctive economy, society,

and political system. The assumption of American

exceptionalism grew out of these ideas. No nation on

Earth had experienced the same influences as the

United States. By the 1960s, these beliefs were part

of every American's education, both formal and

informal.

There had been other frontier discourses

throughout the twentieth century, but none had lasted

as long or been so widespread as the connection of

space and the frontier. There were several reasons

for this condition. First, use of frontier language

seemed most applicable to new physical geographies for

Americans to explore. Scientists and political

advisors had referred to scientific and technological

"frontiers” in the past. Some Americans had applied

frontier language to areas of society where groups or

individuals were pushing traditional boundaries, such

as civil rights and the women's movement. Despite of

295 these references, the space program seemed to be a subject where Americans could use frontier imagery to its greatest advantage.

Second, the time period covered by the early space program— namely, the late 1950s and 1960s— provided a special environment for frontier rhetoric. The United

States was in the midst of the Cold War with the

Soviet Union, providing an occasion for Americans to rethink their national identity. Americans defined the United States in contrast with the Soviet Union, and frontier assumptions were important in that process. The nation's historical experiences had allowed it to develop in an open, democratic way, in contrast with the Soviet Union, which had been under the control of tsars and communist dictators. As opposed to the relatively open way in which the

American political system functioned, the Soviet government was secretive and menacing. Sputnik's launch in 1957 helped to link the idea of the space frontier and Cold War competition together. Many space advocates attributed the timing of the American space program to the Cold War but asserted that even

296 without the Soviet challenge the nation would still have ventured into space because of American identity.

The time period was also significant for another reason. Domestic and international events had created a crisis in American confidence by the 1960s. Civil unrest had challenged many citizens' assumptions about what it meant to be American, as more and more people demanded to become part of the American dream, with all of its benefits and responsibilities. American involvement in the war in Vietnam also represented some of the weaknesses in traditional American assumptions. Not every country chose to emulate the

United States' example after World War II, a reality that surprised many Americans. The country was unsuccessful in its attempt to remake the world in its image— an image that was changing rapidly on the domestic front as well— and this realization caused a crisis in confidence. Were Americans really who they thought they were and, if not, who were they?

In this larger context, American exploration of the space frontier was a way for the nation to feel good about itself once again, a reaffirmation of the values that the nation had held dear throughout its

297 history. The United States chose to put astronauts in space in an open manner, in direct contrast to the

Soviet space program. The nation celebrated each successful mission as a testament of the unique and positive qualities of the United States, lifting up its citizens and, once again, providing a shining example to the rest of the world.

Considering these deeply ingrained beliefs about the nation’s history, it is not surprising that NASA, the presidents, and the Congress often utilized frontier language in justifications of the space program, both consciously and unconsciously. Frontier rhetoric included both intellectual and popular visions of the nation's frontier experience. Having adopted Christopher Columbus as the nation's earliest explorer, many Americans related the space program to

Columbus's discovery of the New World. They likened astronauts to popular frontier figures such as frontiersmen, pioneers, and cowboys, comparing their experiences with exciting Western and space accounts in literature, movies, and television. They described space exploration in similar terms to historical

298 experiences, a "challenge" or "adventure," something

done by a "curious" people.

Although Americans* perceptions of their frontier

past were often different from historical reality, what was important was what Americans believed. Since

they saw their heritage as strengthened by the

frontier influences, Americans hoped that space exploration would have a similar positive impact on

the nation. Americans also connected more

intellectual interpretations of the nation's past to

space. Just as Turner's frontier thesis had argued

that westward expansion had created a safety valve for the United States, relieving domestic pressures and

strengthening the nation's society, economy, and political structure, space could perform the same service in the difficult times of the 1950s and 1960s.

While each of these groups utilized frontier

language to explain why the American space program was

important, they had different motivations. Entrusted with the responsibility of the nation's space goals,

NASA used frontier language to justify its existence to advocates and critics of space exploration. The agency consistently defended its annual budget from

299 other national priorities that also required funding.

Beginning with John F. Kennedy, presidents joined NASA in using frontier rhetoric to endorse the space program and justify budget requests to Congress. Both presidents and members of Congress were also concerned with re-election. They could not advocate programs that their constituents did not support as well, because such a decision could mean that Americans would not return them to office. Unlike NASA and the presidents, who had an active stake in maintaining the space program, legislators were chiefly concerned with their constituents' needs. The 1960s and 1970s were a time of many demands on the national budget, and it was difficult for legislators to prioritize space above domestic programs that seemed to have more tangible results.

Other groups within American society had different motivations for using frontier language to describe space. The media was removed from the constraints facing politicians, being only responsible for accurate and unbiased reporting. In spite of this greater freedom, many journalists became staunch advocates of the national space program, describing

300 space in frontier terms and defending NASA from its critics. Even popular literature, movies, and television programs utilized frontier imagery in descriptions of space exploration, whether fiction or nonfiction, because this language would sell more books and movie tickets and increase television ratings.

These groups* frontier rhetoric could not guarantee that the majority of Americans would view the national space program in the same way. Most

Americans, however, did connect space to their frontier past, both because of official rhetoric and other factors, such as the media, popular culture, and their own historical assumptions. The frontier myth remained an important part of Americans' perceptions of space exploration, even as support for space funding declined over time. Americans did not see their frontier past as being less important but were unwilling to make sacrifices for a new frontier experience. With other national issues claiming their attention, Americans chose to prioritize space differently than they had before the late 1960s and

1970s.

301 It is more difficult to determine the extent to which the majority of Americans accepted the frontier analogy for space exploration. Historians must explore what Americans thought about space from sources such as opinion polls, letters to the editors of newspapers, and letters to astronauts. All of these sources are helpful but represent only a small sample of American opinion. Various space interest groups and organizations can help historians determine the public ' s response to the space program, but these groups are not entirely representative of the larger population either. Possibly the greatest evidence of most Americans' connection of space to the frontier was the widespread use of rhetoric by all of these groups, including not only the media and official sources but also public responses. Why would they have continued to use frontier language to describe space exploration if the metaphor did not work?

Although not entirely representative of the general public's views on space exploration, space organizations provide examples of how enthusiasts tried to influence the federal government's policies.

The National Space Club, founded in 1957, was one of

302 the earliest space organizations. The club only had

twelve hundred members at its peak but was able to

influence the opinions of government officials and the media by sponsoring speakers and awarding the Robert

Goddard Trophy each year to someone who contributed to

the space program. Most space groups organized after

the Apollo program had ended, but these organizations were also concerned with the future of the American

space program, actively lobbying Congress for more

space funding. Most groups had memberships ranging

from approximately seven hundred to twenty-two thousand by the mid-1980s. It is more difficult to quantify their actual influence on space policy.^

The Committee for the Future was one of the early political space organizations functioning in the

1970s. The committee's slogan was "Committee for the

Future— Proposing the development of the frontier on new worlds in space for all mankind." Repeatedly referring to the importance of the frontier past, committee members advocated the creation of a new private space effort in the 1970s that would utilize old materials from the Apollo program to set up

303 colonies in space. This group was short-lived, but others followed its example.^

Physicist Gerard K. O'Neill's L-5 Society was another example of how space enthusiasts organized in the 1970s. Society members pushed for the establishment of American colonies in space and wanted to be among the first people to populate these colonies. O'Neill was outspoken and attracted staunch followers, but the society's membership never rose above ten thousand. O'Neill's justification for expansion into space was that space was the next frontier, one to be exploited for the benefit of the

United States.^

One of the most reputable space organizations was the National Space Institute, organized in 1974. From its inception, the Institute encouraged interest in space exploration, in part because Dr. Wernher von

Braun became its first president. In an explanation of why space must be explored. Institute chairman

Charles C. Hewitt referred to space and the "endless frontier," with numerous benefits for those people who remained on Earth. In setting forth the principles of the National Space Institute, von Braun declared that

304 "history will remember the twentieth century more for these pioneering space accomplishments than for all its fratricidal wars, terrors and political turbulence." The group stressed the importance of the space program's many benefits for the American economy, society, and political system.

Of course, the vast majority of Americans never joined a space organization, and therefore these groups cannot fully represent public opinion on the space program. There are a number of other ways to look at what Americans thought about space during the

Apollo era, including opinion polls, letters to the editors of newspapers, and letters to astronauts and important space officials. All of these sources revealed Americans' interest in the space program.

Although those polled were sometimes reluctant to spend huge amounts of money on space exploration and often placed space lower on lists of national priorities than many domestic issues, survey results implied that Americans remained committed to a national space program. They still viewed space as exciting, watched launches and moon walks on

305 television, and bought commemorative books, magazines, and other space memorabilia.

Frontier mythology also influenced Americans ' written responses to the space program. Astronaut

John Glenn received letters from Americans across the country that included frontier references. A woman from Homestead, Florida, told Glenn that "your great feat, your faith in God, your simplicity and modesty made all of us stand a little taller and gave us pride in being Americans." Another woman wrote that Glenn

"reawakened the hearts and minds of all of us— to what

America and the word 'American* really stands for—

Faith— Courage— Humility— Love of God and Country. "

Letters to newspaper editors also reflected this type of reasoning.^

These types of sources give historians insight into Americans' beliefs about the space program, but still do not fully represent most Americans' opinions.

Americans who wrote letters usually fell into the extremes on either side of the issue. Opinion polls also provide limited understanding of how Americans viewed space in the 1960s. Often polls results were contradictory, making it difficult to determine which

306 response was more accurate. More importantly,

pollsters asked specific types of questions that were

used to get responses that they desired. Most

Americans wanted to pay fewer taxes to the federal

government and therefore desired reductions in many program budgets. But if asked more generally about

the value of the space program or its meaning,

Americans responded more positively. No survey ever asked Americans if they believed that space was the new frontier, with all of the benefits of past

frontiers.

In spite of the limitations in measuring most

Americans' beliefs about space exploration during the

Apollo era, this study has argued that frontier language did influence their understanding of space.

NASA, presidents, legislators, the media, and

Hollywood all used frontier rhetoric to justify the space program because that rhetoric worked. Critics argued that too much money was being spent on space, but few refuted the accuracy of the frontier analogy.

Instead, the use of space language continued throughout the i^ollo program and even into the 1980s and 1990s. The fact that frontier rhetoric continued

307 throughout this time without a break is proof in itself of the power of the frontier myth— why would these groups have continued to refer to space as the frontier if the analogy did not work? There was no incentive for NASA and others to change their frontier arguments because there were no major challenges to those justifications.®

308 Endnotes

1-Michael A-G- Michaud, Reaching for the High Frontier: The American Pro-Space Movement (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1986), 11—12; 343-349.

2.Committee for the Future, Fact Sheet 71-722- 203, "Harvest Moon," and Fact Sheet 71-804-103, in SIA, Record Unit 306, Box 6. See also Michaud, Reaching for the High Frontier. 41-42.

3.Gerard K. O*Neill, The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space (New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1977). See also Ned Scharff, "Too Crowded Here? Why Not Fly Off Into Space?," Washington Star. Nov. 3, 1977; Dr. Gerard K. O'Neill, testimony before the Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications of the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, July 23, 1975, reprinted in Space Colonies, ed. by Stewart Brand (New York: Penguin Books, 1977), 12- 21; Michaud, Reaching for the High Frontier, 81-102.

4.Charles C. Hewitt, "Space Exploration: What Does It Mean For the Human Race?," in SIA, Record Unit 306, Box 50, National Space Institute Files; Dr. Wernher von Braun, "Principles of the National Space Institute," in SIA, Record Unit 398, Box 50, National Space Institute Files; National Space Institute Statement, "Space and America's Most Pressing Problems," in SIA, Record Unit 398, Box 50, National Space Institute Files; National Space Institute News Release no. 76-005, Jan. 15, 1976, "Priorities for Exploration in Space," in SIA, Record Unit 398, Box 50, National Space Institute Files.

5.John A. Glenn, Jr., ed., "P.S. I listened to vour heartbeat": Letters to John Glenn (Houston: World Book Encyclopedia Science Service, Inc., 1964), 170, 233; Peter A. Leavens, Freeport, New York, letter to the editor. New York Times. Feb. 29, 1960. See also Mrs. Marjorie Elaine Dulock to Christopher Kraft and Astronauts Lovell, Haise, and Swigert, April 18, 1970, JSCA, Apollo Program Chronological Files, Box 072-41/42/43; Letter to

309 .Tohn Glenn. 238, 239-240, 241-243, 244-245. For more discussion of public opinion polls, see ch. 4, fns. 20—29.

6.For more recent discussions of the space frontier, see Ann Schrader, "NASA chief reaches for the stars: Young folks at space symposium encouraged to keep looking up," The Denver Post, April 7, 1995; Mark Wolf, "Denver Woman Played Girl Friday to NASA Astronauts in the 60's," The Denver Post, April 16, 1998; Tom Diemer, "All Eyes Are On Glenn and the Heavens," The Times-Picayune, Oct. 29, 1998; "Apollo 11 Astronauts Help Celebrate the 30th Anniversary of Moon Mission's Launch," St. Louis Post-Dispatch. July 17, 1999; Michael Cabbage, "30th Anniversary of Apollo 11 Mission," The San Dieao Union-Tribune. July 17, 1999; Julian Scheer, "30 Years Later, Moon Landing Still Inspires," USA Today, July 19, 1999.

310 BIBLIOGRAPHY

ARCHIVAL SOURCES

Archives of American Aerospace Exploration, The Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (VA Tech)

Evert B. Clark Papers

Robert R. Gilruth Papers

Johnson Space Center Archives. Woodson Research Center, Rice University (JSCA)

Apollo Interview Piles Raymond P. Larson Interview H. B. Cathers Interview Mel R. Barlow Interview George S. Trimble Interview Christopher Kraft Interview A.J. Dessler Interview

Miscellaneous Subject Piles

Apollo Program Chronological Piles

NASA News Releases

MSC News Releases

Apollo Spacecraft History Interviews

General History Documents

311 Skylab Chronological Files

Library of Congress. Manuscript Division (LOC)

Werhner von Braun Papers

NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA National Headquarters, Washington, D.C. (NHRC)

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, White House Files

President John F. Kennedy, White House Files

President Lyndon B. Johnson, White House Files

President Richard M. Nixon, White House Files

President Gerald R. Ford, White House Files

President Jimmy Carter, White House Files

President Ronald Reagan, White House Files

National Aeronautics and Space Council, White House Files

Office of Public Affairs News Releases Current News Comment on the National Space Program

Center Newspapers Goddard News Spaceport News Space News Roundup

Office of Legislative Affairs Legislative Activities Reports

Robert Sherrod Apollo Collection Oral History Interviews Tom Stafford Interview

312 Rocco Petrone Interview Hubert Humphrey Interview Apollo 8 Files Apollo 11 Files

Impact Collection Congressional Relations Congressional Relations Correspondence

National Air and Space Museum Library (NASM)

Social Impact Collection Public Opinion Surveys

Oral History __ o£.__ History, National Air and Space Museum (OHC)

Brian Duff Interview, April 24, 1989

Brian Duff Interview, April 26, 1989

Rice University Manuscript Collection, Woodson Research Center, Rice University (RUMC)

Jack McCaine Collection

Smithsonian Institution Archives (SIA)

Record Unit 306

Record Unit 343

Record Unit 348

Record Unit 398

313 Newspapers:

The Alexandria Gazette The Atlanta Constitution The Atlanta Journal The Birmingham News The Boston Globe The Chicago Sun-Times The Chicago Tribune The Christian Science Monitor The Daily Press (Newport News, Virginia) The Dallas Nomina News The Denver Post The Evening Star (Washington, D.C.) The Hartford Times The Houston Chronicle The Houston Post The Huntsville News The Huntsville Times The Independent (Long Beach, California) The Kansas Citv Times The Los Angeles Evening and Sunday Herald

Los Angeles Herald-Examiner The Los Angeles Times The Miami Herald The Miami News The Milwaukee Journal The Minneapolis Tribune The New Haven Register The New York Herald Tribune The New York Daily News The New York Times The News (Berea, Ohio) The Philadelphia Daily News The Philadelphia Enquirer The Philadelphia Evening Bulletin The Plain Dealer The Pueblo Scar Journal (Colorado) The St. Louis Post-Disoatch The San Dieao Union The San Dieao Union-Tribune The San Francisco Chronicle The San Francisco Examiner The San Jose Mercury The Santa Monica Evening Outlook

314 The Star-Telearam (Fort Worth, Texas) The Sun (Baltimore) The Times-Herald (Newport News, Virginia) The Times-Picavune

The Wall Street Journal The Washington Daily News The Washington, D.C.. News The Washington.Eost The Washington Star

Magazines and other Periodicals: Agrggpagg Air Force Magazine Air Force/Space Digest Aviation Week & Space Technology Business Week Collier^s Defense/Soace Daily Harper's Magazine Life Look Newsweek The Saturday Evening Post

Space Journal of the Rocket Citv Astronomical Association Space Technology to Benefit Man: AIAA Student Journal Time U.S. News & World Report

315 Published Primary Sources

Adams, Sherman. Firsthand Report: The Storv of the Eisenhower Administration. New York: Harper and Row, 1961.

Aldrin, Buzz, and Malcolm McConnell. Men From Earth. New York: Bantam Books, 1969.

Aldrin, Edwin E. "Buzz", with Wayne Warga. Return to Earth. New York: Random House, 1973.

The American Assembly, Columbia University. Outer Space: Prospects for Man & Society. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1962.

America's Next Decades in Space : A Report for the Space Task Group. Prepared by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1969.

Anderton, David A. Aeronautics: Space in the Seventies. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1971.

Apollo. Washington, DC: Office of Public Affairs, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1973.

Apollo 8: Man Around the Moon. (NASA EP-66) Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1968.

Apollo 14 ... Another Giant Leap. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Manned Flight Awareness, 1971.

Armstrong, Neil, Michael Collins, Edwin E. Aldrin, Jr. First on the Moon. Written with Gene Farmer and Dora Jane Hamblin. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1970.

______- Th^ Ficgt t.gh^p..I.ghq}ihg; ?.Oth Anniversary. Washington, DC: NASA, Office of Public Affairs, 1989.

316 Barbour, John. Footprints on the Moon. N.p.: The Associated Press, 1969.

The Best We Can Be. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Manned Spaceflight Awareness, n.d.

Brand, Stuart, ed. Space Colonies. New York: Penguin Books, 1977.

Bryan, C.D.B. The National Air and Space Museum. Vol. II. Space: From Earth to the Stars. New York: Peacock Press/Bantam Books, 1982.

Bush, Vannevar. Science— The Endless Frontier: A Report to the President on a Program for Postwar Scientific Research. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, 1945.

Carpenter, M. Scott, et. al. We Seven. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1962.

Chase, Harold W., and Allen H. Lerman. Kennedy and the Press: The News Conferences. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1965.

Clarke, Arthur C. The Exploration of Space. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1951.

Collins, Michael. Carrying the Fire: An Astronaut's Journeys. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1974.

______. Liftoff: The Story of America's Adventure in Space. New York: Grove Press, 1988.

- Mission to Mars: An Astronaut's Vision of Our Future In Space. New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1990.

Congressional Record.

Cooper, James Fenimore. The Pioneers; or. The Sources of the Susguehanna. New York: Charles Wiley, 1823.

317 The Last of the Mohicans: A Narrative of 1757■ Paris: L. Baudry, 1826.

. The Prairie. A Tale. London: Henry Colburn, 1827.

The Pathfinder; or. The Inland Sea. Philadelphia: Lea and Blanchard, 1840.

. The Deerslaver; or. The First Warpath. Philadelphia: Lea and Blanchard, 1841.

Cortrigh-t, Edgar M. Space Exploration— Whv and How. (EP-25) Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1965.

Cox, Donald W. America's Explorers of Space. Maplewood, NJ: Hamond Inc., 1967.

Cronkite, Walter. Interview for WAMÜ Radio Special. "Washington Goes to the Moon." .

Crum, William L. Lunar Lunacy and Other Commentaries. Philadelphia: Dorrance & Company, 1965.

Darina What Others Dream. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1984.

Diamond, Edwin. The Rise and Fall of the Space A ae. Garden City, NY: , 1964.

Elias, George Henry. Breakout into Space: Mission for a Generation: An Argument for the Settlement of Space. New York: William Morrow and Co., Inc., 1990.

Etzioni, Amitai. Interview for WAMU Radio Special. "Washington Goes to the Moon." .

Etzioni, Amitai. The Moon Doaale. Garden City, NY: n.p., 1964.

318 Fletcher, James C- Space and Man's Environment. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1973. Reprint of address to the National Wildlife Federation Special Session at the Washington Hilton Hotel, 17 March 1973.

______- Spaceship Earth: A Look Ahead to a Better Life. Washington, DC: NASA, 1973. Reprint of address to the Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, U.S. Senate.

Fortune editors. The Space Industry: Americans Newest Giant. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall, Inc., 1962.

Froehlich, Walter. Apollo 14: Science at Fra Mauro. (NASA EP-91) Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office of Public Affairs, 1971.

Gallup, George H. The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion, 1935-1971. vol. 3, 1959-1971. New York: Random House, 1972.

Glenn, John A., Jr. ^.S. 1 listened to vour heartbeat": Letters to John Glenn. Houston: World Book Encyclopedia Science Service, Inc., 1964.

Glennan, T. Keith. The Birth of NASA: The Diary of T. Keith Glennan. Edited by J.D. Hunley. (NASA SP-4105) Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1993.

Goodwin, Harold Leland. Space: Frontier Unlimited. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1962.

Henderson, Arthur, Jr., and Grey, Jerry, eds. Exploration of the Solar System. (NASA EP-122) Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1974.

Holmes, Brainerd. Manned Space Flight — 1963. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1963.

319 Holmes, J. America On the Moon: The Enterprise of the Sixties. Philadelphia: J.P. Lippencott, 1962.

"In this Decade..." Mission to the Moon. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1969.

Introduction to Outer Space: An Explanatory Statement Prepared bv the President*'s Science Advisory Committee. The White House. 26 March 1958.

John F. Kennedy Space Center: America's Spaceport. (KSC-601) John F. Kennedy Space Center, Office of Public Affairs, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Sept. 1, 1967.

Johnson, Lyndon B. The Vantage Point: Perspectives of the Presidency. 1963-1969. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971.

Kaplan, Joseph, et. al. The Space Frontier. New York: The Viking Press, 1952.

Kennan, Erland A., and Edmund H. Harvey, Jr. Mission to the Moon: A Critical Examination of NASA and the Space Program. New York: William Morrow & Co., Inc., 1969.

Killian, James R., Jr. Sputnik, Scientists, and Eisenhower: A Memoir of the First Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1977.

Kistiakowsky, George B. A Scientist at the White House: The Private Diary of President Eisenhower's Special Assistant for Science and Technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976.

Lewis Visitor Information Center. Cleveland, OH: Lewis Research Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1980.

320 Lewis, Richard S. Appointment on the Moon. New York: Ballantine Bocks, 1969.

Ley, Willy. Adventure in Space: Man-Made Satellites. Poughkeepsie, NY: Guild Press, 1958.

______. Adventure in Space: Space Pilots. Poughkeepsie, NY: Guild Press, 1958.

- Adventure in Space: Space Stations. Poughkeepsie, NY: Guild Press, 1958.

. Adventure in Space: Space Travel. Poughkeepsie, NY: Guild Press, 1958.

. The Conquest of Space. New York: The Viking Press, 1949.

. Rockets and Space Travel: The Future of Flight Bevond the Stratosphere. New York: The Viking Press, 1948.

Logsdon, John M. , et.al., eds. Exploring the Unknown: Selected Documents in the History of the U.S. Civilian Space Program. Vol. I, Organizing for Exploration. NASA History Series. Washington, DC: NASA History Office, 1995.

Logsdon, John M . , et. al., eds. Exploring the Unknown: Selected Documents in the History of the U.S. Civilian Space Program. Vol. II, External Relationships. NASA History Series. Washington, DC: NASA History Office, 1996.

Lovell, Jim, and Jeffrey Kluger. Lost Moon : The Perilous Vovaoe of Apollo 13. Boston, New York; Houghton Mifflin Company, 1994.

MacKinnon, Douglas, and Joseph Baldanza. Footprints: The 12 Men Who Walked on the Moon Reflect on Their Flights. Their Lives, and the Future. Washington, D.C.: Acropolis Books, Ltd., 1989.

321 Martin, Franklin D., and Terence T. Finn. Space Station: Leadership for the Future. (PAM 09/8- 87) Washington, D.C.: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1987.

Mazlish, Bruce, ed. The Railroad and the Space Program: An Exploration in Historical Analogy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1965.

A Meeting With the Universe: Science Discoveries from the Space Program. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1981.

Mondale, Walter. Interview for WAMU Radio Special. "Washington Goes to the Moon." .

Montoya, Earl J., and Fimmel, Richard O. Space Pioneers and Where They Are Now. (NASA EP-264) Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1987.

Morrison, David, and Samz, Jane. Voyage to Jupiter. (NASA SP-439) Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Scientific and Technical Information Branch, 1980.

Morrison, Elting E., ed. The Letters of Theodore Roosevelt. Vol 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1951.

NASA (NP-111) Washington, D.C.: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, n.d.

NASA and the Universities: Principal Addresses at the General Sessions of the NASA-Universitv Congress on the Science and Technology of Space Exploration. (NASA EP-5) Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1962.

NASA Historical Staff. Historical Sketch of NASA. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1965.

322 National Commission on Space. Pioneering the Space Frontier: The Report of the National Commission on Space. New York: Bantam Books, 1986.

Newell, Homer E. "NASA Space Science and Applications Program." In Soeakina of Space and Aeronautics. Vol. I, No. 7. May 1965.

New Frontiers of the Kennedy Administration: The Texts of the Task Force Reports Prepared for the President. Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press, 1961.

New Horizons. Revised ed. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1977.

Nixon, Eli chard. FIN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon. New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1990.

Odishaw, Hugh, ed. The Challenges of Space. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962.

O'Neill, Gerard K. The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1977.

O'Sullivan, John L. "Editorial." In The United States Magazine & Democratic Review 6 (November 1839): 439.

The Post-Apollo Space Program: Directions for the Future. Space Task Group Report to the President, 1969.

Public Papers of the Presidents. Ronald Reagan. 1983. Vol. II. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1984.

Public Papers of the Presidents. Ronald Reagan. 1984. Vol. II. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1986.

Public Papers of the Presidents, Ronald Reagan. 1985. Vol. I. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1988.

323 Rabinowitch, Eugene, and Richard S. Lewis, eds. Man on the Moon: The Impact on Science. Technology. and International Cooperation. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1969.

Roosevelt, Franklin D. The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Vol. 1. New York: Random. House, 1938.

Ryan, Cornelius, ed. Across the Space Frontier. New York: The Viking Press, 1952.

Seamans, Robert C., Jr. Action and Reaction. The 1969 Minta Martin Lecture. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, with the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1969.

Setting the Course: The First Year: Maior Policv Statements by President Richard Nixon. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, a division of Reader's Digest Books, Inc., 1970.

Shelton, William. American Space Exploration: The First Decade. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1967.

Shelton, William R. Man's Conquest of Space. Washington, DC: National Geographic Society, 1968.

Shepard, Alan, and Deke Slayton. Moon Shot : The Inside Storv of America's Race to the Moon. Atlanta: Turner Publishing Inc., 1994.

Simon, Tony. The Moon Explorers. New York: Scholastic Books, 1970.

Skinner, Richard M., and William Leavitt, eds. Speaking of Space: The Best From Space Digest. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1962.

Slayton, Donald K., with Michael Cassutt. Deke! U.S. Manned Space: From Mercury to the Shuttle. New York: Tom Doherty Associates, Inc., 1994.

324 Skvlab: OutPost on the Frontier of Space. (EP-124) Washington^ D.C.: National Aeronautics and Space Administration and National Geographic Society, 1974.

Space...the New Frontier. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1963. Reprinted in 1964.

Space: The New Frontier. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1967.

The Space Program in the Post-Aoollo Period. A Report of the President's Science Advisory Committee, Prepared by the Joint Space Panels. The White House, February 1967.

Space Flight Bevond the Moon. Rev. ed. Cleveland: Electromagnetic Propulsion Division, Lewis Research Center, 1965.

Space Handbook: Astronautics and Its Applications. Staff Report of the Select Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration, 1959.

Space Station: A Research Laboratory in Space. (NASA PAM-512) Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, n.d.

Spirit of Columbus: Central Ohio's Manned Space- Fliaht Research and Development Capabilities. Comp, by Battelle Memorial Institute, The Ohio State University, and the Columbus Division of North American Aviation, Inc. Columbus, OH: Battelle Memorial Institute, n.d.

Stofan, Andrew J. Space Station: A Step into the Future (PAM 510/11-87) Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1987.

The Storv of Columbus and the World's Columbian Exposition. Cincinnati: W.H. Ferguson Co., 1892.

325 Sullivan, Walter, ed. America's Race for the Moon: The New York Times Storv of Project Apollo. New York: Random House, 1962.

Sun, Earth, and Man: The Need to Know: The Quest for BCnowledae of Sun-Earth Relations. (NASA EP-172) Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1982.

Taubenfeld, Howard J., ed. Space and Society. Dobbs Ferry, NY: n.p., 1964.

Taylor, L.B., Jr. For All Mankind: America's Space Programs of the 1970s and Beyond. New York: E.P. Dutton & Company., Ltd., 1974.

A Technical Introduction to Space: The Challenge of Space Exploration. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1959.

This is NASA. (NASA EP-155) Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Public Affairs Division, 1979.

The Triumph of Astronaut L. Gordon Coooer, Jr. and the Faith 7 Mav 15-16, 1963. Houston: Manned Spacecraft Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1963.

U.S. Congress. House. 86th Cong., 2d sess., on H.R. 10246. 1961 NASA Authorization: Hearings Before the Committee on Science and Astronautics and Subcommittees Nos. 1, 2. 3, and 4 (17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 26 February 1960) [no. 4].

U.S. Congress. House. 87th Cong., 1st sess., on H.R. 6874. 1962 NASA Authorization: Hearings Before the Committee on Science and Astronautics (11, 12, and 13 July 1961) [no. 7] Part 3.

U.S. Congress. House. 87th Cong., 1st sess., on H.R. 3238 and H.R. 6029 (superseded by H.R. 6874), 1962 NASA Authorization: Hearings Before the Committee on Science and Astronautics and Subcommittees Nos. 1, 3, and 4 (13, 14, 22,and

326 23 March 1961) (10, 11, 14, and 17 April 1961) [No. 7] Part 1.

U.S. Congress. House. 87th Cong., 1st sess., on H.R. 3238 and H.R. 6029 (superseded by H.R. 6874) . 1962 NASA Authorization: Hearings Before the Committee on Science and Astronautics and Subcommittees Nos. 1. 3. and 4 (18, 19, 20, 21, and 24 April 1961) [no. 7] Part 2.

U.S. Congress. House. 87th Cong., 2d sess., on H.R. lOlOO (superseded by H.R. 11737). 1963 NASA Authorization: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Advanced Research and Technology of the Committee on Science and Astronautics (7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 23, 27, 28, and 29 March 1962) (3 April 1962) [no. 2] Part 3.

U.S. Congress. House. 87th Cong., 2d Sess., on H.R. 10100 (superseded by H.R. 11737). 1963 NASA Authorization: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Applications and Tracking and Data Acquisition of the Committee on Science and Astronautics (5, 6, 8, 12, and 14 March 1962) (10 April 1962) [no. 2], Part 5.

U.S. Congress. House. 87th Cong., 2d Sess., on H.R. 10100 (superseded by H.R. 11737). 1963 NASA Authorization: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Manned Space Flight of the Committee on Science and Astronautics (6, 7, 8, 14, 20, 26, 27, 28, and 29 March 1962) (2, 3, 4, 5, and 10 April 1962) [no. 2], Part 2.

U.S. Congress. House. 87th Cong., 2d Sess., on H.R. 10100 (superseded by H.R. 11737). 1963 NASA Authorization: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Space Sciences of the Committee on Science and Astronautics (6, 7, 8, 13, 19, and 20 March 1962) [no. 2] Part 3.

U.S. Congress. House. 88th Cong., 2d sess., on H.R. lOlOO (superseded by H.R. 11737). 1963 NASA Authorization: Hearings Before the Committee on Science and^tronautics (27 and 28

327 February 1962) (12 April 1962) (3 May 1962) [no. 2], Part 1.

U.S. Congress. House. 88th Cong., 1st sess., on H.R. 5466 (superseded by H.R. 7500). 1964 NASA Authorization: Hearings Before the Committee on Science and Astronautics (4 and 5 March 1963) [no. 3] Part 1.

U.S. Congress. House. 89th Cong., 1st Sess., on H.R. 3730 (superseded by H.R. 7717). 1966 NASA Authorization: Hearings Before the Committee on Science and Astronautics (17, 18, 19, 23, and 24 February 1965) (13 April 1965) [No. 2], Part 1.

U. S. Congress. House. 89th Cong., 1st Sess., on H.R. 3730 (superseded by H.R. 7717). 1966 NASA Authorization: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Advanced Research and Technology of the Committee on Science and Astronautics (2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, and 18 March 1965) [No. 2] Part 4.

U.S. Congress. House. 89th Cong., 1st Sess., on H.R. 3730 (superseded by H.R. 7717). 1966 NASA Authorization: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications of the Committee on Science and Astronautics (4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 22, 24, 25, and 26 March 1965) [No. 2] Part 3.

U.S. Congress. House. 90th Cong., 2d Sess., on H.R. 15086 (superseded by H.R. 15856). 1969 NASA Authorization: Hearings Before the Committee on Science and Astronautics (7 and 8 February 1968) [no. 3] Part 1.

U.S. Congress. House. Hearing Before the Committee on Science and Astronautics. 92d Cong., 2d sess. Aoollo 16 Mission Report (16 May 1972) [no. 18].

U.S. Congress. House. Report of the Committee on Science and Astronautics. 91st Cong., 2d sess. For the Benefit of All Mankind: A Survey of the Practical Returns from Space Investment (7 December 1970). Serial R.

328 U.S. Congress. House. Staff Study for the Subcommittee on NASA Oversight of the Committee on Science and Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives. 89th Cong., 2d sess. Future National Space Objectives (1966). Serial O.

U. S. Congress. Select Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration. 85th Cong., 2d Sess. Space Handbook: Astronautics and Its Applications. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1959.

U.S. Congress. Senate. 88th Cong., 1st sess. Scientists' Testimony on Space Goals (10 June 1963; 11 June 1963).

U.S. Congress. Senate. Hearing Before the Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences. 91st Cong., 2d sess. Space Program Benefits (6 April 1970).

U.S. Congress. Senate. Hearing Before the Subcommittee on the Smithsonian Institution of the Committee on Rules and Administration, 88th Cong., 2d sess. on S. 2602, A Bill to Amend Public Law 722 of the 79th Congress, and Public Law 85-935, Relating to the National Air Museum of the Smithsonian Institution. Smithsonian Institution (National Air and Space Museum) (22 June 1964).

U.S. on the Moon; What It Means to Us. A U.S. News & World Report Book. London: Collier-Macmillan Ltd., 1969.

Van Dyke, Vernon. Pride and Power: The Rationale of the Space Program. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1964.

Von Braun, Wernher, and Frederick I. Ordway, III. History of Rocketry and Space Travel. New York, Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1966.

Von Braun, Wernher. First Men to the Moon. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960.

329 Space Frontier. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967.

Wallace, Henry. New Frontiers. New York: n.p., 1934.

We Came in Peace: The Storv of Man in Space. San Rafael, CA: Classic Press, Inc., 1969.

Wilford, John Noble. We Reach the Moon. New York: Bantam Books, July 1969.

Wilson, Woodrow. "The Making of the Nation." In Atlantic Monthly 80(July 1897): 1-2.

______. "The Proper Perspective of American History." In Forum 19 (July 1895): 544-559.

Winthrop, John. Winthrop Papers. Vol. 2. 1623- 1630. Boston: The Massachusetts Historical Society, 1931.

Wister, Owen. The Virginian. New York: Macmillan, 1911.

Witkin, Richard, ed. The Challenge of the Sputniks, New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1958.

330 Published Secondary Literature

Anderson, Frank W., Jr. Orders of Magnitude: A History of NACA and NASA. 1915-1980. (NASA SP- 4403) Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1981.

Athearn, Roberrt G. The Mvthic West in Twentieth- Century America. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1968.

Atwill, William D. Fire and Power: The American Space Program as Postmodern Narrative. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press, 1994.

Badger, Reid. The Great American Fair: The World's Columbian Exposition and American Culture. Chicago: N. Hall, 1979.

Bainbridge, William Sims. The Spaceflight Revolution: A Sociological Study. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1976.

Bartlett, Richard A. The New Country: A Social History of the American Frontier. 1776-1890. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974.

Benson, Charles D., and William Barnaby Faherty. Moonport: A History of Apollo Launch Facilities and Operations. (NASA SP-4204) Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1978.

Bergaust, Erik. Reaching for the Stars. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1960.

______. Werhner von Braun. Washington: , 1976.

Berthoff, Roland W. "The American Social Order: A Conservative Hypothesis." In American Historical Review 65 (April 1961): 495-526.

Billington, Ray Allen. America's Frontier Heritage. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1974.

331 Bilstein, Roger E. Orders of Magnitude: A History of the NACA and NASA. 1915-1990. (NASA SP-4406) Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 198 9.

______- Stages to Saturn: A Technological History of the Apollo/Satum Launch Vehicles. (NASA SP-4206) Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1980.

Blackstone, Sarah. Buckskins. Bullets, and Business: A History of Buffalo Bill's Wild West. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1986.

Bodnar, John. Remaking America: Public Memory. Commemoration, and Patriotism in the Twentieth Century. Princeton: Princeton Uniyersity Press, 1992.

Bogue, Allan G. Frederick Jackson Turner: Strange Roads Going Down. Norman, OK: Uniyersity of Oklahoma Press, 1998.

Bogue, Allan G., Thomas D. Phillips, and James E. Wright, eds. The West of the American People. Ithaca, IL: F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc., 1970.

Bold, Christine. Selling the Wild West: Popular Western Fiction. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987.

Breuer, William B. Race to the Moon: America's Duel With the Soviets. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1993.

Brooks, Courtney G., James M. Grimwood, and Loyd S. Swenson, Jr. Chariots for Aoollo: A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft. Washington, DC: Scientific and Technical Information Branch, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1979.

Bulkeley, Rip. The Sputniks Crisis and Earlv United States Space Policy: A Critigue of the Historiography of Space. Bloomington and Indianapolis, Indiana University Press, 1991.

332 Bushman, Claudia. America Discovers Columbus: How an Italian Explorer Became an American Hero. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 1992.

Byerly, Radford, Jr., ed. Space Policv Reconsidered. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1989.

Byrnes, Mark E. Politics and Space: Image Making bv NASA. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1994.

Campbell, David. Writing Security: United States Foreign Policv and the Politics of Identity. Revised ed. Minneapolis : The University of Minnesota Press, 1998.

Carter, Dale. The Final Frontier: The Rise and Fall of the American Rocket State. New York: Verso, 1988.

Collins, Martin J., and Sylvia D. Fries, eds. Perspectives on American Space History and Policv. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1991.

Compton, W. David. Where No Man Has Gone Before: A History of Aoollo Lunar Exploration Missions. (NASA SP-4212) Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1989.

Cronon, William, George Miles, and Jay Gitlin, eds. Under an Open Skv: Rethinking America's Western Past. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1992.

Dawson, Virginia P. Engines and Innovation: Lewis Laboratory and American Propulsion Technology. (NASA SP-4306) Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1991.

Dethloff, Henry C. "Suddenly Tomorrow Came...": A History of Johnson Space Center. 1957-1990. (NASA SP-4307) Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1993.

333 Divine, Robert A. The Sputnik Challenge. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

______r ed. The Johnson Years. Vol 2. the Environment, and Science. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1987.

Doenecke, Justus E. "Myths, Machines, and Markets : The Columbian Exposition of 1893." In Journal of Popular Culture 6(Spring 1973).

Elkin, Frederick. "Psychological i^peal of the Hollywood Western." In Journal of Educational Psychology 24 fOctober 1950): 72-87.

Emme, Eugene M. Aeronautics and Astronautics: An American Chronology of Science and Technology in the Exploration of Space, 1915-1960. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1961.

______- A History of Space Flight. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965.

, ed. Science Fiction and Science Futures. San Diego: American Astronautical Society, 1982.

Etulain, Richard W. Re-imaginina the Modern American West: A Century of Fiction. History, and Art. Tucson; University of Arizona Press, 1996.

______- Telling Western Stories: From Buffalo Bill to Larrv McCurtey. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1999.

/ ed. Writing Western History: Essavs on Major Western Historians. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1991.

Ezell, Edward Clinton, and Linda Neuman Ezell. On Mars: Exploration of the Red Planet. 1958-1978 (NASA SP-4212) Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1984.

334 Faragher, John Mack. Daniel Boone: The Life and Legend of an American Pioneer. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1992.

Fishwick, Marshall W. "The Cowboy: America's Contribution to the World's Mythology." In Western Folklore 11(1951-1952): 72-92.

Francaviglia, Richard. "Walt Disney's Frontierland as an Allegorical Map of the American West." In Western Historical Quarterly 30(Summer 1999): 155-182.

Fries, Sylvia D. NASA Engineers and the Aae of Apollo. (NASA SP-4104) Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1992.

Fussell, Edwin. Frontier: American Literature and the American West. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965.

Fryd, Vivien. Art and Empire: The Politics of Ethnicitv in the United States Capitol. 1815- 1860. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992.

Gillis, John R., ed. Commemorations: The Politics of National Identitv. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994.

Glassberg, David. American Historical Pageantry: The Uses of Tradition in the Earlv Twentieth Century. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1990.

Goetzmann, William H. When the Eagle Screamed: The Romantic Horizon in American Diplomacy, 1800- 1860. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966.

Goetzmann, William H., and William N. Goetzmann. The West of the Imagination. New York: Norton, 1986.

Grossman, James R. The Frontier in American Culture. An Exhibition at the Newberry Library, August 26, 1994-January 7, 1995. Berkeley and

335 Los Angeles: The University of California Press, 1994.

Hacker, Barton G., and Grimwood, James M. On the Shoulders of Titans: A History of Project Gemini. (NASA SP-4203) Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1977.

Haillon, Elichard P. On the Frontier: Flight Research at Drvden, 1946-1981. (NASA SP-4303) Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1984.

Hallion, Richard P., and Tom D. Crouch, eds. Apollo: Ten Years Since Trancmilitv Base. Washington, DC: National Air and Space Museum, 1979.

Hansen, Alvin. Fiscal Policy and Business Cycles. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1941.

Hansen, James R. Engineer in Charge: A History of the Langley Aeronautical Laboratory. 1917-1958. NASA History Series. Washington, DC: Scientific and Technical Information Office, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1987.

______- Spaceflight Revolution: NASA Langlev Research Center from Sputnik to Apollo. (NASA SP-4308) Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1995.

Hartman, Edwin P. Adventures in Research: A History of Ames Research Center. 1940-1965. (NASA SP- 4302) Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1970.

Haynes, Sam W., and Christopher Morris, eds. Manifest Destiny and Empire: American Antebellum Expansionism. College Station: Texas A & M University Press for the University of Texas at Arlington, 1997.

Hechler, Ken. The Endless Space Frontier: A History of the House Committee on Science and Astronautics. 1959-1978. AAS History Series,

336 Vol. 4. San Diego: American Astronautical Society, 1982.

Hietala, Thomas R. Manifest Design: Anxious Aggrandizement in Late Jacksonian America. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1985.

Hirsch, Richard, and Joseph John Trento. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1973.

Horsman, Reginald. Race and Manifest Destiny: The Origins of Racial Analo-Saxonism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981.

Hurt, Harry, III. For All Mankind. New York: The Atlantic Monthly Press, 1988.

Jacobs, Wilbur R. "The Indian and the Frontier in American History— A Need for Revision." In Western Historical Quarterly 4 (January 1973): 43-56.

On Turner's Trail: 100 Years of Writing Western History. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1994.

Kammen, Michael. Mvstic Chords of Memory: The Transformation of Tradition in American Culture. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1991.

Kauffman, James L. Selling Outer Space: Kennedy, the Media, and Funding for Project Apollo, 1961- 1963. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 1994.

Klein, Kerwin Lee. Frontiers of Historical Imagination: Narrating the European Conquest of Native America. 1890-1990. Berkeley; University of California Press, 1997.

Kreyche, Gerald F. Visions of the American West. Lexington, KY: The University Press of Kentucky, 1989.

337 BCrugr Linda. Presidential Perspectives on Space Exploration: Guiding Metaphors from Eisenhower to Bush. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1991.

Lambright, W. Henry. Powering Apollo: James E. Webb of NASA. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995.

Launius, Roger D., and J.D. Hunley. An Annotated Bibliography of the Apollo Program. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 2. Washington, DC: NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, July 1994.

Launius, Roger D. NASA: A History of the U.S. Civil Space Program. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company, 1994.

Laut, Agnes C. "The Last Trek to the Last Frontier: The American Settler in the Canadian Northwest. ' In Century Magazine 56(May 1909): 99-110.

Lenihan, John H. Showdown: Confronting Modern America in Western Film. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1980.

Levine, Arnold S. Managing NASA in the Apollo Era. (NASA SP-4102) Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1982.

Limerick, Patricia Nelson. The Legacy of Conguest: The Unbroken Past of the American West. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987.

Linenthal, Edward Tabot. Symbolic Defense: The Cultural Significance of the Strategic Defense Initiative. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1989.

Logsdon, John M. The Decision to Go to the Moon: Project Apollo and the National Interest. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1970.

Martin, Russell. Cowbov: The Enduring Mvth of the Wild West. New York: Stewart, Tabor, & Chang, 1983.

338 McCurdyr Howard E. Inside NASA: High Technology and Organizational Change in the a.S. Space Program. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.

______. Space and the American Imagination. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1997.

McDermott, John Francis, ed. The Frontier Re­ examined. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1967.

McDougall, Walter A. — the Heavens and the Earth: A Political History of the Space Age. New York: Basic Books., Inc., 1985.

Meany, Edmond S. "The Towns of the Pacific Northwest Were Not Founded on the Fur Trade." In American Historical Association Annual Report, 1910. Washington, D.C: n.p., 1911.

Merk, Frederick. History of the Westward Movement. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978.

______. Manifest Destiny and Mission in American History: A Reinterpretation. New York: Vintage Books, 1963.

Michaud, Michael A.G. Reaching for the High Frontier: The American Pro-Space Movement. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1986.

Miller, Perry. Errand into the Wilderness. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1956.

Mogen, David, Mark Busby, and Paul Bryant, eds. The Frontier Experience and the__American Dream: Essays on American Literature. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, 1989.

Mogen, David. Wilderness Visions: Science Fiction Westerns Volume One. San Bemadino, CA: The Borgo Press, 1982.

339 Muenger, Elizabeth A. Searching the Horizon: A History of Ames Research Center, 1940-1976. (NASA SP-4304) Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1985.

Murray, Charles, and Catherine Ely Cox. Apollo: The Race to the Moon. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989.

Nash, Gerald D. The American West in the Twentieth Century. Albuquerque: Uniyersity of New Mexico Press, 1977.

______- Creating the West: Historical Interpretations. 1890-1990. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1991.

Neal, Valerie, ed. Where Next Columbus?: The Future of Space Exploration. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.

Newell, Homer E. Bevond the Atmosphere: Early Years of Space Science. (NASA SP-4211) The NASA History Series. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Scientific and Technical Information Branch, 1980.

Ordway, Frederick I., Ill, and Randy Liebermann, eds. Blueprint For Space: Science Fiction to Science Fact. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1992.

Parks, Rita. The Western Hero in Film and Television. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1982.

Potter, David. People of Plenty: Economic Abundance and the American Character. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954.

Prevots, Naima. American Pageantry: A Moment for Art and Democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1990.

Reigel, Robert E. America Moves West. New York: H. Holt, 1930.

340 Rereading Frederick Jacksoa_ Tu.rner_L _ZThe Significance of the Frontier in American History" and Other Essavs, with commentary bv John Mack Parapher. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1994.

Ridge, Martin. "The Life of An Idea: The Significance of Frederick Jackson Turner's Frontier Thesis." In Montana: The Magazine of Western History 40 (Winter 1991): 2-13.

______. "Ray Allen Billington, Western History, and American Exceptionalism." In Historical Review 5 6 (November 1987); 495-511.

Riley, Glenda. "Frederick Jackson Turner Overlooked the Ladies." In Journal of the Early Republic 13 (Summer 1993): 216-230.

Ritchie, Robert C., and Paul A. Huttons, eds. Frontier and Region: Essavs in Honor of Martin Ridge. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1997.

Robertson, James Oliver. American Mvth. American Reality. New York: Hill & Wang, 1980.

Roland, Alex. A Soacefaring People: Perspectives on Early Spaceflight. Washington, DC: Scientific and Technical Information Branch, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1985.

Rosenthal, Alfred. Venture into Space: Earlv Years of Goddard Space Flight Center. (NASA SP-4301) Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1985.

Rosholt, Robert L. An Administrative History of NASA, 1958-1963. Washington, DC: Scientific and Technical Information Division, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1966.

Ross, Edward A. "The Study of the Present as an Aid to the Interpretation of the Past." In Mississippi Valiev Historical Association Proceedings 2 (1908-1909): 129.

341 Roxie, Frederick E. "Discovery America: An Introduction.'' In Journal of American History 7 9 (December 1992): 835-840.

Russell, Don. The Wild West; or. A History of the Wild West Shows.... Fort Worth, TX: Amon Carter Museum of Western Art, 1970.

Schauer, William H. The Politics of Space: A Comparison of the Soviet and American Space Programs. Hew York: Holmes & Meier, Publishers, 1976.

Schenker, Daniel, Craig Hanks, and Susan Kray, eds. Inner Space/Outer Space: Humanities. Technology. and the Postmodern World: Selected Papers from the Southern Humanities Conference, February 12- 14. 1993. Huntsville, AL: Southern Humanities Press, 1993.

Schlereth, Thomas J. "Columbia, Columbus, and Columbianism. " In Journal of American History 7 9 (December 1992): 937-968.

Segal, Charles M., and David C. Stineback. Puritans. Indians, and Manifest Destiny. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1977.

Semple, Ellen Churchill. American History and Its Geographical Conditions. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1903.

Shafer, Byron E., ed. Is America Different?: A New Look at American Exceptionalism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.

Simons, Algie. Social Forces in American History. New York: Macmillan, 1911.

Simonson, Harold P. The Closed Frontier: Studies in American Literary Tragedy. New York: Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1970.

______. "The Closed Frontier and the American Tragedy." In Texas Quarterly 1 1(Spring 1968): 56-61.

342 Slotkin, Richard. The Fatal Environment : The Mvth of the Frontier in the Aae of Industrialization, 1800-1890. New York: HarperPerrenial, 1985.

______. Gunfiahter Nation: The Mvth of the Frontier in Twentieth-Century America. New York: HarperPerennial, 1992.

. Regeneration Through Violence: The Mythology of the American Frontier, 1600-1860. New York: RarperPerennialy 1973.

Smith, Henry Nash. Virgin Land: The American West as Symbol and Myth. New York: Vintage Books, division of Random House, 1950.

Swenson, Loyd S., Jr., Grimwood, James M., and Alexander, Charles C. This New Ocean: A History of Project Mercury. (NASA SP-4201) Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1966.

Stephanson, Anders. Manifest Destiny: American Expansion and the Empire of Right. New York: Hill & Wang, 1995.

Takaki, Ronald. "The Tempest in the Wilderness : The Racialization of Savagery." In Journal of American History 79(December 1992): 892-912.

Treutner, William H., ed. The West as America: Reinterpreting Images of the Frontier. 1820- 1920. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1991.

Turner, Frederick Jackson. The Frontier in American History. Foreword by Wilbur R. Jacobs. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1986.

______. "The Significance of the Frontier in American History." In Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1893. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1894.

343 Tyrell, Ian. "American Exceptionalism in an Age of International History." In American Historical Review 96(October 1991): 1031-1067.

Van Orman, Richard A. The Explorers: Nineteenth Century Expeditions in Africa and the American West - Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1984.

Webb, Walter Prescott. The Great Frontier. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1980.

Weinberg, Albert K. Manifest Destinv: A Study of Nationalist Expansionism in American History. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1935.

Wells, Helen T., Susan H. Whitely, and Carrie Karegeannes. Origins of NASA Names. (NASA SP- 4402) Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1976.

White, G. Edward. The Eastern Establishment and the Western Experience: The West of Frederic Remington, Theodore Roosevelt, and Owen Wister. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1968.

Why Man Explores: A Symposium Held at Beckman Auditorium, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, July 2, 1976. (EP-125) Washington, D.C.: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1976.

Williams, William Appleman. The Contours of American History. Cleveland: World Publishing Company, 1961.

______. "The Frontier Thesis : An American Foreign Policy." In Pacific Historical Review 2 4 (November 1956): 379-95.

Wrobel, David M. The End of American Exceptionalism: Frontier Anxiety from the Old West to the New Deal. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1993.

344