Chapter 2: Eisenhower’s Legacy

NASA was nearly two years old when I became Associate Administrator and general manager. Under the leadership of Administrator T. Keith Glennan and his deputy, Hugh Dryden, much had been accomplished since the Agency’s establishment in 1958. The former National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) had been welded together with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory of the California Institute of Technology, the Army Redstone Arsenal research and development team under Wernher von Braun, and parts of the Naval Research Laboratory. A more complete discussion of NASA’s Centers is included in chapter 5.

NASA programs were providing interesting and useful results with a research and development budget that had grown in three years from $300 million to nearly $1 billion. The Echo balloon could be seen overhead on clear nights, and the Television Infrared Observation Satellite (TIROS) was in orbit, providing useful information for the Weather Bureau.

Seven astronauts had been recruited and trained, and they were prepared to orbit Earth. Technicians and engineers were at Cape Canaveral preparing the Mercury capsule, the Redstone and Atlas boosters, and the launch facilities for 90minute flights around the world. The capsule could weigh no more than 4,400 pounds with either of the two boosters, and only one, the Atlas, had the power necessary for a complete orbit.¹ Plans had been discussed at an industry conference in August for an Apollo Program to include manned circum-lunar flights.

During the fall, the final Eisenhower budget was in preparation. NASA’s budget request to the Bureau of the Budget (BoB)—now the Office of Management and Budget, or OMB—was a little over $1.4 billion. This figure had been whittled to $1.109 billion by Maurice Stans, head of the BoB, and his team.² Keith elected to try one more time for an increase, and he took me along. He first asked for an Administrator’s discretionary fund of $50 million. Maury didn’t give Keith time to explain. He just said, “You’ve got to be kidding. What else have you in mind?” Keith then discussed the need for a $10-million line item for an experimental communication satellite, despite the fact that NASA already had the Echo balloon in orbit for communications. The balloon served as a giant 100-foot-diameter reflector in space. Maury wasn’t impressed. He said that was up to the communications industry. Keith explained that industry had no means for orbiting satellites. Maury responded that NASA could include $10 million in its budget as a reimbursable item. NASA could place the communication industry’s satellites in orbit on a payback basis. And that’s where the discussion ended.

Labor Complications at Cape Canaveral, November–December 1960

In early November, I received a frantic call from Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Director Wernher von Braun. There was a potentially serious labor problem at Cape Canaveral. Complex 37 was under construction for the Saturn I then in development at Huntsville. However, the interface between the complex and the Saturn I team had to remain flexible, so there wasn’t time to send the final 5 to 10 percent of the construction out for sealed bids by contractors with unionized labor. The two unions involved were the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, IBEW, and the United Association of Plumbers and Journeymen. I called the presidents of both unions and asked if Wernher and I could meet with them together to discuss construction at Cape Canaveral. It was agreed, and on a sunny mid-November day, we headed to IBEW headquarters. The reception area and boardroom would have done justice to corporate America— thick carpet, large conference table, and comfortable leather chairs. After my brief introduction, Wernher gave a careful, logical, and somewhat impassioned talk about the importance of a tight schedule for the development of large boosters in the United States. He used a few graphics to explain why government personnel were required to finish off the construction of the launch facilities, 90 to 95 percent of which would have been completed by unionized firms. They seemed to understand but said that they were a democratic organization and they would appreciate our talking to the locals in Florida. Several days later, we were in a union hall, talking to the locals. As before, I went first. Early on, Wernher said, “NASA wouldn’t be able to honor its commitment to the President if . . . .” At that point, he was cut off by a local voice yelling, “What president?” Wernher replied, “President Eisenhower.” The response was an emphatic “Thank God we’re rid of that son of a bitch.” The meeting ended with my saying that we would proceed with government employees and hope we’d have the unions’ support.

We had government employees work on the construction; the union struck; and on Thanksgiving afternoon, I was being called on the carpet at Keith Glennan’s apartment. Secretary of Labor James P. Mitchell had called Keith and wanted to know why NASA was trying to spoil Eisenhower’s labor record his last few months in office. We agreed to mediation, ate crow, and agreed to hire a labor counselor at NASA Headquarters to keep us from future labor errors. However, government workers did complete the construction of the Saturn I launch complex, the one that President Kennedy would later visit during his last week in office.

Eisenhower and Lunar Exploration

After Kennedy’s election, President Eisenhower held a cabinet meeting on 20 December, and space exploration was on the docket. Keith went first and discussed the NASA fiscal year (FY) 1962 budget submission to Congress. Little discussion followed. Then Dr. Kistiakowski, the President’s science advisor, followed with a presentation of his committee’s study on making a manned lunar landing. All were attentive. When he said it was difficult to determine costs, heads nodded. But he went on to say that estimates ranged from $26 to $38 billion. The room was filled with sighs, and someone volunteered, “If we let scientists explore the Moon, then before you know it they’ll want funds to explore the planets.” Everybody laughed. Eisenhower ended this part of his meeting with a rhetorical question: “Can anybody tell me what is the best space program for $1 billion?” Walking from the cabinet room, I realized why Maury Stans was adamant that there would be no additions to NASA’s budget in FY 1962.

Space Exploration Council

On 5 January 1961, the Space Exploration Council held a full-day session to discuss a program for manned lunar landing. George Low, Program Chief for Manned Space Flight, introduced the subject by outlining the guidelines of the program. His stated objective was a lunar landing and safe return at the earliest practical date, regardless of cost. The establishment of a lunar base was the secondary goal. In his view, consideration should be given to using a number of Saturn launch vehicles with rendezvous in Earth orbit, as well as to a direct approach with a single Nova-type vehicle (a vehicle capable of both a manned lunar landing and a safe return). He recommended holding the schedule for the Saturn I unchanged but changing the Saturn II’s first flight from July 1965 to April 1964. In his study he assumed a spacecraft weight of 8,000 pounds.³

Following Low’s presentation, Wernher von Braun outlined Marshall Space Flight Center’s plans, which were based on more modest funding. He stated that the lunar program should do the following things:

• Use building blocks from the present spaceflight program
• Possess flexibility in case of technical mishaps or breakthroughs
• Be adaptable for rapid expansion if the need arises
• Fit into the time and economy framework of the nation
• Be attractive to the general public and the military⁴

Then Max Faget, representing the Space Task Group (which became the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston), stated Apollo’s objectives:

• On-board capability to maneuver in deep space
• Ability to perform rendezvous missions
• Capability for outer space (hyperbolic) reentry with landing at a predetermined location
• Ability to terminate at any time with safe crew return.⁵

The presentations were not coordinated prior to the meeting. There were a wide variety of schedules presented, and the conference room was awash with billion-dollar estimates. There was certainty on one issue: NASA’s leadership had taken a giant intellectual step since the industry conference of July 1961. Then, NASA’s planning goal for the decade, based on the earlier Goett Study (chaired by Harry Goett, Director of Goddard Space Flight Center), was circumlunar flight. The Goett Committee felt that there would be too many imponderables in a manned lunar landing to warrant further investigation in the near term. However, now there was clear consensus that NASA should proceed with the lunar landing planning and that George Low should be its chief honcho. Before the meeting ended, Keith Glennan warned that Eisenhower hadn’t approved the mission. His admonishment was certainly an understatement. But for Keith, President Eisenhower would have recommended to Congress that no further manned space mission should be in the works until Mercury was completed and evaluated.

The instructions for the manned lunar landing task group under George Low’s direction were dated 6 January 1961. The principal items requested of the group follow:

It is the task of this group to prepare a position paper for use in presenting the NASA FY62 budget to Congress. The paper should answer the question “What is NASA’s Manned Lunar Landing Program?”

The Program for FY62 is defined in the budget for FY62 and in our plans for the conduct of the program utilizing these funds. The task group must put these individual pieces together into a complete but tersely worded statement of the NASA Lunar Program for FY62.

Since a single year’s program cannot stand alone it is obvious that the Congress will be interested in what we plan to accomplish in the following years. This information is summarized in the Ten Year Plan. We do not have enough data to decide at this time whether we will attempt manned landing by direct flight or by rendezvous techniques.

Finally, the paper must answer the question, “How much is it going to cost to land a man on the moon and how long is it going to take?” We must answer this question for both the rendezvous and the direct approach.⁶

Abe Silverstein, Director of the Office of Space Flight Programs, and I attended the first meeting of the Lunar Landing group on 9 January. Questions arose and were clarified. A summary of those is listed below:

• We must not assume that a decision has been made to land a man on the moon.
• However, development of the scientific and technical capability for manned lunar landing is a prime NASA goal but it is not the only goal.
• In paragraph 5 of the January 6 instructions it is not intended that we develop specific dates and costs. This is not possible at this time. The position paper must spell out what our answer should be to the question.
• We must present a positive rendezvous program. This program will be pursued in order to develop a manned spacecraft capability in near space, regardless of whether it is needed for manned lunar landing.
• Our approach should be positive. We should state that we are doing the things that must be done to determine whether manned lunar landing is possible.⁷

Keith Glennan’s Last Day

Jack Kennedy’s inauguration was on 20 January; since Keith Glennan would be leaving NASA as Eisenhower left office, he had to wrap up his affairs at NASA on the 19th. He had a busy day and put the capstone on much unfinished business. One such item was Ranger, along with Surveyor; both were handled by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA’s Center for unmanned lunar and planetary missions. Ranger, a lunar photographic probe, was already under development. Photographs were to be transmitted from Ranger as it approached and crashed on the lunar surface. Surveyor’s role was quite the opposite; it was to land softly on the Moon and analyze surface conditions after impact. By 19 January, the source evaluations were ready for the Administrator’s presentation. Keith gamely held off his return to Cleveland for the source selection. Hughes Aircraft won the Surveyor contract. The data from Surveyor would be crucial to the design of the manned Lunar Lander. During the day, Keith also documented those projects he had authorized.⁸ In each case, he listed limitations, requirements, and understandings relating to technical parameters experiments and management, as well as magnitude and type of resource allocation. Among the projects were 16 scientific satellites and probes, 2 meteorological satellites, 3 nonactive communication satellites, 7 lunar and planetary missions, 2 manned spacecraft, 4 launch vehicle developments, 2 rocket engine developments, and 5 nuclear projects for power or propulsion. The two rocket engines were the F-1, which was kerosene-fueled with a thrust of 1.5 million pounds, and the J-2, hydrogen-fueled with a thrust of 200,000 pounds. These engines were central to the success of the Saturn vehicles. Of course, the great success of Mercury in the Kennedy years was due to the planning and product development in Eisenhower’s administration. In two and a half years, NASA was up and away with a space program that provided a solid foundation for the years to come.

Keith was due for a good change of pace, but it wouldn’t start for at least 24 hours. After a glass of sherry to toast his performance, Keith left for his apartment and then the drive home to Ohio. Unfortunately, there was a blizzard of major proportions. Keith reached his apartment, gathered up his remaining luggage, and started driving. After struggling for a few hours and gaining only a few miles, he headed to a friend’s house for emergency lodging. He then returned home to family, friends, and his beloved Case Institute the following day.

The Wiesner Ad Hoc Committee on Missiles and Space

During the interval between Kennedy’s election and his inauguration, a sword of Damocles hung over NASA. Jerry Wiesner chaired the incoming administration’s committee on missiles and space. Alarming rumors, which we thought were probably inaccurate, kept appearing in journals and newspapers. Such ideas as a merger of NASA and the military or a transfer of manned spaceflight to the military, along with hints about the incompetence of NASA leadership, were quite unnerving. The actual report by the ad hoc Committee on Space, dated 10 January 1961 (appearing 10 days before the inauguration) was fairly reasonable, although I bristled a bit at the time. The report noted, quite rightly, that space exploration had captured the imagination of the peoples of the world. It was important to maintain American preeminence in space—the prestige of the United States was on the line. The report again correctly pointed out that the inability of U.S. rockets to lift large payloads into space seriously limited our program. But then, in the section on Man-inSpace, the report stated that by placing a high priority on the Mercury Project, we had strengthened the popular view of its importance as compared with the “acquisition of knowledge and the enrichment of human life.”⁹ It’s true that the public became more excited by the selection of our astronauts than by Dr. Van Allen’s discovery of the radiation belts around Earth, but that was caused more by the human interest than by the contents of NASA’s public releases.

The report then expressed great concern about the possible failure of Mercury and the resulting possible loss of life. The new administration would have to take the blame for the death of an astronaut. The report went on to say that the Man-in-Space program appeared unsound and that the new administration should be prepared to modify it drastically or cancel it. Above all, it recommended that Mercury be downgraded and project advertising stopped.

The report went on to say that the difficulties and delays endured by the program had resulted from insufficient planning and direction caused by a lack of “a strong scientific personality in the top echelons.”¹⁰ Not only had this lack affected NASA’s operations, but there were also far too few outstanding scientists and engineers deeply committed to the space field in general. Strengthening NASA’s top management would encourage more talented personnel to participate.

However, in the same report, there was the already-mentioned acknowledgment that the United States was operating at a disadvantage because our boosters had limited capability compared to those of the Soviets. The Saturn booster was endorsed, along with the Centaur rocket and the F-1 engine—all part of Glennan’s legacy. The report had another strong plug for the past scientific: “In the three years since space exploration began, experiments with satellites and deep space probes have provided a wealth of new scientific results of great significance. In spite of the limitations in our capability of lifting heavy payloads, we now hold a position of leadership in space science.”¹¹ Not too bad for a bunch of dimwits!

Finally, the report laid out application possibilities for communication, meteorology, and further scientific investigation in keeping with NASA’s existing plans. It stressed the need for wider participation by university and industrial scientists. So NASA’s number-one issue in the Kennedy administration was going to be “where goeth man in space?”¹²

During this period of anxiety, there was much excitement as the inaugural activities went into high gear. A blizzard made it difficult to get to evening events the night before. Our daughter was undaunted, walking out the front door of our house in an evening gown with appropriate slippers and no overshoes. We arrived late at Constitution Hall for the concert, minutes after the President-elect’s departure. My parents arrived at 4:00 a.m. By chance, they were on a plane from Boston with Cardinal Cushing, who was officiating at the swearing in and whose entourage included 45 nuns. When landing in Washington became impossible, they were diverted to New York and took a train to Washington. The day itself was sunny and cold, and an exuberant crowd was full of confidence in the new leadership.