First off, Kennedy didn't even want the space program. Just remember when he first heard of landing on the moon he said, "We shouldn't be spending this kind of money because I'm not that interested in space". Thanks to those upstart communists blasting a person into orbit, he gave his 'speech' launching the Apollo program. Easy thing? No.

Recall in 1960 he barely won the election with a narrow majority of 0.03% of the popular vote, not a very wide margin (did they have chads then?). So he made this huge commitment in the first half of his first term knowing full well that two more elections would pass before Apollo landed. Only if the winds were really blowing right would he have given Apollo support in 1964. But who next? With the two term limit, Kennedy couldn't run in 1968.

Just how huge was this commitment? NASA was a brand new, pure research, very visible line item on the federal budget. In 1962, it hungrily consumed about 1.2% of total revenues. In 1966, NASA's peak for the Apollo years, this climbed to almost 6%.

Was this huge in relation to other line items? Yes!

NASA/Apollo consistently ranked in the top ten, if not top five, of all agency outlays. Look at the global picture. Over 200,000 United States troops fighting in Vietnam, with more arriving, had the defence department chewing more and more dollars. You can bet that no matter who ran for the presidential office, they'd continually need a strong justification for this commitment to pure research.

Would Kennedy's speech itself be special enough to keep this commitment? Its challenge was to scare people with the fear of losing to the communist horde. Was losing likely? Al Shephard flew in space less than one month after Yuri Gagarin. The ensuing Mercury missions kept the US tucked up close to the abilities of the Soviet Union all before the election year of 1964. Then, well before the 1968 election, all the Gemini launches succeeded and the US's abilities easily exceeded the Soviet's.

The speech was a marvellous catalyst but in short order the US achieved its main objective, to overtake the Soviet Union in space technology. Have no doubt that at least one if not both election platforms for 1964 and 1968 would've reconsidered committing a significant portion of the nation's wealth into a race already won.

So let's get back to Lee Harvey Oswald. In no way am I approving of his action in 1963, but I am drawing consequences from it. Kennedy, the leader of the free democratic people in the world, had challenged his country and vouched his name to place a man on the moon before 1970.

Then disaster, the people's battle leader fell while he was attacking the perfidious foe. The nation had to rise up and vanquish this foe. Admitting defeat and suffering the chagrin of not avenging their warlord was unacceptable. It didn't matter that Oswald wasn't a Soviet communist nor did it matter that there was no actual armed conflict between the two nations. It was war and this was a battle that now had to be won.

Lee Harvey Oswald, in one shot, focussed the nation to achieve one task and there was no turning back. No longer would the Apollo program be an issue for the bean counters, now it was personal. And with that, the US went on, through seven years and two elections, to have its astronauts frolic in lunar dust.

Therefore, in a very odd twist, space enthusiasts can credit Lee Harvey Mr. Oswald for ensuring the continuation of the Apollo program through two presidential elections and one huge war (Vietnam) without being cut or downsized (unlike Space Station Freedom or the International Space Station). Lee Harvey Oswald did save the Apollo program.

Oswald doesn't get all the credit though. Apollo was at the right time and at the right place. World War II introduced huge numbers of new technology without the social infrastructure to ensure their safe usage.

World wide domination was still in vouge in the 1960's. Propaganda (without the Internet) could powerfully sway a nation's emotions and perhaps intelligence. And the randomness of butterflies flapping their wings in the Amazon (are there any remaining?) ensured unexpected events happened such as someone slaying their own leader. Many quite disparate elements, and of course hard work, came together to make the Apollo program one of the greatest memorials to humankind's abilities.

And from this we see the relevance to the Moon, Mars and Beyond (MMB) vision. Having a brave new destination, even with adequate infrastructure, doesn't guarantee continual support. President Bush provided the vision and should be given great accolades, but he's in his second term.

There's going to be a whole new ball game in four years; new players, new coaches and new strategies and tactics. It is unlikely to expect the nation to again have an emotional tie-in to the space program. Therefor, this vision, this program needs will succeed only if it becomes detached from the cyclical voting process.

Further, given its size and scope, it will need the technical, financial and emotional support from many nations. It must be led by an international bureaucratic body, freed from political sportsmanship yet still responsive to citizens. This body would then draw on a wide global basis for assistance, provide a unifying goal for nations, and, place people on the Moon, Mars or beyond.

Lee Harvey Oswald, in a perverse bit of serendipity, saved the Apollo program. Through his action the original inception of space exploration survived two elections and a large war. To again see a bold technological and engineering breakthrough transport our species to a higher level, we must turn to more concrete processes. An international body must drive our species out from Earth. Without this, inter-planet and star travel may be a lot longer in coming.

The author, Mark Mortimer, can be contacted via the following modified email mmortimer47@[email protected]

Related Links
SpaceDaily
Search SpaceDaily
Subscribe To SpaceDaily Express

Thanks for being here; We need your help. The SpaceDaily news network continues to grow but revenues have never been harder to maintain. With the rise of Ad Blockers, and Facebook - our traditional revenue sources via quality network advertising continues to decline. And unlike so many other news sites, we don't have a paywall - with those annoying usernames and passwords. Our news coverage takes time and effort to publish 365 days a year. If you find our news sites informative and useful then please consider becoming a regular supporter or for now make a one off contribution.
SpaceDaily Contributor $5 Billed Once credit card or paypal		SpaceDaily Monthly Supporter $5 Billed Monthly paypal only