Chapter Two Project Apollo: Americans to the Moon John M. Logsdon Project Apollo, the remarkable U.S. space effort that sent 12 astronauts to the surface of Earth’s Moon between July 1969 and December 1972, has been extensively chronicled and analyzed.1 This essay will not attempt to add to this extensive body of literature. Its ambition is much more modest: to provide a coherent narrative within which to place the various documents included in this compendium. In this narrative, key decisions along the path to the Moon will be given particular attention. 1. Roger Launius, in his essay “Interpreting the Moon Landings: Project Apollo and the Historians,” History and Technology, Vol. 22, No. 3 (September 2006): 225–55, has provided a com­ prehensive and thoughtful overview of many of the books written about Apollo. The bibliography accompanying this essay includes almost every book-length study of Apollo and also lists a number of articles and essays interpreting the feat. Among the books Launius singles out for particular attention are: John M. Logsdon, The Decision to Go to the Moon: Project Apollo and the National Interest (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1970); Walter A. McDougall, . . . the Heavens and the Earth: A Political History of the Space Age (New York: Basic Books, 1985); Vernon Van Dyke, Pride and Power: the Rationale of the Space Program (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1964); W. Henry Lambright, Powering Apollo: James E. Webb of NASA (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995); Roger E. Bilstein, Stages to Saturn: A Technological History of the Apollo/Saturn Launch Vehicles, NASA SP-4206 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1980); Edgar M. Cortright, Apollo Expeditions to the Moon, NASA SP-350 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1975); Charles A. Murray and Catherine Bly Cox, Apollo: The Race to the Moon (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989); Stephen B. Johnson, The Secret of Apollo: Systems Management in American and European Space Programs (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002); Norman Mailer, Of a Fire on the Moon (Boston: Little, Brown, 1970); Michael Collins, Carrying the Fire: An Astronaut’s Journeys (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1974); Andrew Chaikin, A Man on the Moon: The Voyages of the Apollo Astronauts (New York: Viking, 1994); W. David Compton, Where No Man Has Gone Before: A History of Apollo Lunar Exploration Missions, NASA SP-4214 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1989); Don E. Wilhelms, To A Rocky Moon: A Geologist’s History of Lunar Exploration (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1993); Donald A. Beattie, Taking Science to the Moon: Lunar Experiments and the Apollo Program (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001); Howard McCurdy, Space and the American Imagination (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1997); Marina Benjamin, Rocket Dreams: How the Space Age Shaped Our Vision of a World Beyond (New York: Free Press, 2003); De Witt Douglas Kilgore, Astrofuturism: Science, Race, and Visions of Utopia in Space (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003); and Andrew Smith, Moondust: In Search of the Men Who Fell to Earth (New York: Fourth Estate, 2005). In addition to these accounts, a number of Apollo astronauts, NASA managers and fl ight operations personnel, and managers from the aerospace industry have published memoirs about their engage­ ment with Apollo. Of particular interest is Robert C. Seamans, Jr., Aiming at Targets (Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Special Publication-4106, 1996), and Project Apollo: The Tough Decisions, NASA, Monographs in Aerospace History No. 37, SP-2005-4537, 2005, and Glen E. Swanson, “Before This Decade is Out . . .: Personal Reflections on the Apollo Program (Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Special Publication-4223, 1999). 388 Project Apollo: Americans to the Moon Origins of Apollo When it began operations on 1 October 1958, NASA had already been tasked by the Eisenhower administration with the initial U.S. human space fl ight effort, soon to be designated Project Mercury. NASA also inherited a number of robotic missions that had been planned by various elements of the Department of Defense (DOD) and was given an agenda of desired missions by the Space Science Board of the National Academy of Sciences. NASA spent much of 1959 integrating these missions into a Long-Range Plan; to do so, it also recognized the need to identify its long-range goals for human space flight and the steps needed to achieve those goals. To undertake this task, in the spring of 1959 NASA created a Research Steering Committee on Manned Space Flight. This committee was chaired by Harry Goett, then of NASA’s Ames Research Center but soon to become the Director of the new Goddard Space Flight Center. The committee held its fi rst meeting on 25 and 26 May 1959. Its members included senior representatives from the NASA Field Centers and the Agency’s Washington Headquarters. At this meeting, Bruce Lundin from the Lewis Research Center argued that “the ultimate objective is manned interplanetary travel and our present goal should be for a manned lunar landing and return.” Engineer and spacecraft designer Maxime Faget of the Space Task Group of the Langley Research Center “endorsed selecting lunar exploration as the present goal of the committee although the end objective should be manned interplanetary travel.” George M. Low, then in charge of human space flight at NASA headquarters, suggested that the committee adopt the lunar landing mission as NASA’s present long-range objective with proper emphasis on intermediate steps “because this approach will be easier to sell.” Others at the meeting suggested a more modest objective, human flight around the Moon without a landing attempt, be adopted as NASA’s stated goal. (II-1) There was no agreement at this point, but by the committee’s next meeting in late June, after George Low had lobbied the group, the committee decided that indeed a lunar landing should be selected as the long-range goal for human space flight, with an orbiting space station and circumlunar flight as intermediate steps. The NASA Long-Range Plan, published in December 1959, thus identifi ed as objectives for the 1965 to 1967 time period the first launches “in a program leading to manned circumlunar flight and to [a] permanent near-earth space station.” The objective of “manned flight to the moon” was identified, but only in the “beyond 1970” period (Volume I, III-2). While Low and some of his associates would have preferred a faster-paced effort, at least NASA, after only 15 months of operation, was on record as intending to head to the Moon, if only they could get the White House and Congress to agree. In mid-1960, NASA’s thinking about the intermediate steps in human space flight had matured to the point that the space agency called together representatives of the emerging space industry to share that thinking. At a “NASA-Industry Program Plans Conference” held in Washington on 28 and 29 July 1960, George Low told the audience “at this point it should be stated that official approval of this program has not been obtained. Rather, this presentation Exploring the Unknown 389 includes what we now believe to be a rational and reasonable approach to a long- range development prog ram leading to the manned exploration of outer space.” He added “our present planning calls for the development and construction of an advanced manned spacecraft with sufficient fl exibility to be capable of both circumlunar flight and useful Earth-orbital missions. In the long range, this spacecraft should lead toward manned landings on the moon and planets, and toward a permanent manned space station. This advanced manned space fl ight program has been named ‘Project Apollo.’” (II-2) The name Apollo had been suggested by Low’s boss, NASA’s Director for Space Flight Programs, Abe Silverstein, in early 1960. Silverstein had also chosen the name for Project Mercury, and he wanted to establish a tradition of naming NASA’s projects after Greek gods.2 NASA, and particularly George Low, in the second half of 1960 continued to move forward in planning Apollo and the lunar landing mission that was its long-term goal. On 17 October, he informed Silverstein “it has become increasingly apparent that a preliminary program for manned lunar landings should be formulated. This is necessary in order to provide a proper justifi cation for Apollo, and to place Apollo schedules and technical plans on a fi rmer foundation.” To undertake this planning, Low formed a small working group of NASA Headquarters staff. (II-3) That NASA was planning advanced human spaceflight missions, including one to land people on the Moon, soon came to the attention of President Eisenhower and his advisors as NASA submitted a budget request that included funds for industry studies of the Apollo spacecraft. This request was not approved, and the president asked his science advisor, Harvard chemist George Kistiakowsky, to organize a study of NASA’s plans by the President’s Science Advisory Committee. To carry out such a study, Kistiakowsky established an “Ad Hoc Committee on Man-in-Space” chaired by Brown University professor Donald Hornig. The Hornig Committee issued its report on 16 December 1960. The report called Project Mercury a “somewhat marginal effort,” and noted “among the reasons for attempting the manned exploration of space are emotional compulsions and national aspirations. These are not subjects which can be discussed on technical grounds.” The Committee estimated the cost of Project Apollo at $8 billion, and suggested that a program to land humans on the Moon would cost an additional $26 to 38 billion. (Volume I, III-3) When President Eisenhower was briefed on the report, he found these projected costs well beyond what he thought reasonable. When a comparison was made to Queen Isabella’s willingness to fi nance the voyages of Christopher Columbus, Eisenhower replied that “he was not about to hock his jewels” to send men to the Moon.3 George Low’s working group on a manned lunar landing presented its interim findings to a meeting of NASA’s Space Exploration Program Council in 2. Charles A. Murray and Catherine Bly Cox, Apollo: The Race to the Moon (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989), pp. 54–55. 3. John M. Logsdon, The Decision to Go to the Moon: Project Apollo and the National Interest (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1970), pp. 34–35. 390 Project Apollo: Americans to the Moon early January 1961; the council decided that Low should continue his planning effort. However, outgoing NASA Administrator T. Keith Glennan reminded Low that such a program would require presidential approval, and that approval had not been forthcoming. Indeed, as President Dwight D. Eisenhower left offi ce on 20 January 1961, the future of NASA’s program of human spacefl ight was extremely uncertain. There were no funds in the President’s final budget proposal to support Project Apollo, and it was known that the incoming President, John F. Kennedy, was receiving advice skeptical of the value of launching humans into space. There certainly was no sense that Kennedy would, within four months, decide to send Americans to the Moon. The Decision to Go to the Moon4 As he entered the White House, President Kennedy was aware that he would be faced with decisions that would shape the future of U.S. space efforts. One of his top advisors during the period between the election and his taking offi ce, Harvard professor Richard Neustadt, told Kennedy in December 1960 that the United States had been in a race for dramatic space achievements, a race that the Soviet Union was winning because of their superior space launch capability. Neustadt asked “if we are behind and are likely to stay behind in the race for ‘Sputnik-type firsts,’ should we get out of the race and divert the resources now tied up in it to other uses which have tangible military, scientific or welfare value?” Neustadt was skeptical of the value of the Saturn rockets,5 which he noted were needed “only in order to put a man on the moon” before Russia, but he did support the development of a very large rocket motor (the F-1). He asked Kennedy “in the longer run, what proportion of government resources, for what span of years, should go into developing the technology of space travel?” (Volume I, III-4) Kennedy also appointed during the transition an “Ad Hoc Committee on Space,” which was chaired by the man who would become his science advisor, MIT Professor Jerome Wiesner. This committee recognized that “manned exploration of space will certainly come to pass and we believe that the United States must play a vigorous role in this venture,” but that “because of our lag in the development of large boosters, it is very unlikely that we shall be first in placing a man into orbit.” However, the committee believed that too much emphasis had been placed on Project Mercury in comparison to its actual scientific and technological payoffs, and recommended that “we should stop advertising MERCURY as our major objective in space activities. . . . We should find effective means to make people appreciate the cultural, public service, and military importance of space activities other than [human] space travel.” (Volume I, III-5) 4. Most of the account of this decision is taken from Logsdon, The Decision to Go to the Moon. This study of the Kennedy decision, published in 1970, remains the accepted version of the events leading to Kennedy’s 25 May 1961 announcement that “we should go to the moon.” 5. At this point, Saturn was the name of the Wernher von Braun-led program to develop a larger booster than anything the United States was otherwise planning, but still far short in lifting power of what was ultimately developed as the Saturn V for the lunar landing program. Exploring the Unknown 391 In his Inaugural Address, delivered on a wintry Washington afternoon, President John F. Kennedy suggested to the leaders of the Soviet Union that “together let us explore the stars.”6 In his initial thinking about space policy, Kennedy favored using space activities as a way of increasing the peaceful interactions between the United States and its Cold War adversary. Soon after he came to the White House, Kennedy directed his science advisor to undertake an intensive review to identify areas of potential U.S.-Soviet space cooperation, and that review continued for the first three months of the Kennedy administration, only to be overtaken by the need to respond to the Soviet launch of Yuri Gagarin on 12 April. Soviet-U.S. cooperation in space was a theme that Kennedy was to return to in subsequent years. A first order of business was to select someone to head NASA. After a number of candidates indicated that they were not interested in the position, on the advice of his Vice President, Lyndon B. Johnson, powerful Oklahoma Senator Robert Kerr, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, and his science advisor Jerome Wiesner, Kennedy turned to James E. Webb on 31 January. The NASA position was one of the last top-level jobs to be filled by the new administration. Webb was from North Carolina, trained as a lawyer and veteran of both congressional staff and senior executive branch positions during the Truman administration, and had business experience working for one of Kerr’s companies in Oklahoma.7 Webb agreed to take the NASA job, but only after meeting with the President, who told Webb that he wanted “someone who understands policy. This program involves great issues of national and international policy.” Webb got assurances from the President that respected scientist and manager Hugh Dryden would be allowed to stay on as NASA’s Deputy Administrator. Webb also decided to retain Associate Administrator Robert Seamans, who served as the Agency’s general manager. Seamans was a Republican, and Webb wanted to present NASA as not being influenced by partisan politics. Webb was sworn in as NASA Administrator on 14 February.8 John Kennedy’s closest advisor, Theodore Sorenson, was later to comment that “Webb was not what we would call a Kennedy-type individual. He was inclined to talk at great length, and the President preferred those who were more concise in their remarks. He was inclined to be rather vague, somewhat disorganized in his approach to a problem, and the President preferred those who were more precise.” However, according to Sorenson, “I don’t know that the President ever regretted his appointment of Webb, or wished that he had named someone else.” (II-43) Once Webb arrived at NASA, a first task was to review the Agency’s proposed budget for FY 1962 that had been prepared by the outgoing Eisenhower 6. Public Papers of The Presidents of the United States: John F. Kennedy, 1961 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1962), p. 2. 7. For a perceptive biography of James E. Webb, see W. Henry Lambright, Powering Apollo: James E. Webb of NASA (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995). 8. W. Henry Lambright, Powering Apollo: James E. Webb of NASA (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1995), pp. 82–87. 392 Project Apollo: Americans to the Moon administration. In doing so, Webb and his associates came to the conclusion that NASA’s planning had been too conservative, and that the milestones included in the Agency’s 10-year plan should be accelerated. One input into this conclusion was the 7 February final report of Low’s working group, which concluded that “the present state of knowledge is such that no invention or breakthrough is believed to be required to insure the overall feasibility of safe manned lunar flight,” that “manned landings on the moon . . . could be made in the 1968–1971 time period,” and that it would be possible to carry out a lunar landing program for a total cost of $7 billion. (II-4) Based on this and other analyses, NASA requested a 30 percent increase in its FY 1962 budget over what had been proposed by President Eisenhower. The Bureau of the Budget reacted negatively to such a large increase, and on 22 March 1961 Webb, Dryden, and Seamans met with President Kennedy and his staff to discuss how best to proceed. At that meeting, NASA noted that President Eisenhower had eliminated from the NASA budget all funds related to human flight after Project Mercury, including the Apollo spacecraft and heavier lift boosters and rocket motors. Webb told the President that “the Soviets have demonstrated how effective space exploration can be as a symbol of scientifi c progress and as an adjunct of foreign policy. . . . We cannot regain the prestige we have lost without improving our present inferior booster capability.” At this point Kennedy had not made up his own mind about the future of human space flight, and so he was unwilling to approve NASA’s request to restore funds for the Apollo spacecraft; the sense is that decisions on this issue would come during the preparation of the FY 1963 NASA budget at the end of 1961. Support for the importance of human spaceflight, as the President deliberated on its future, came from the Space Sciences Board of the National Academy of Sciences. The chairman of that board, Lloyd Berkner, was a longtime friend of James Webb, and on 31 March he sent Webb and Kennedy’s science advisor Jerome Wiesner a letter reporting that the board had agreed that “from a scientifi c standpoint, there seems little room for dissent that man’s participation in the exploration of the Moon and planets will be essential, if and when it becomes technologically feasible to include him.” (II-5) Kennedy and his advisors did agree that the United States, for a variety of reasons, needed to approve its space lift capabilities, and so he approved an additional $114 million for launch vehicle development. There matters were planned to rest until NASA was successful in its initial flights of Project Mercury, planned for later in 1961, and it came time to formulate the NASA budget for FY 1963. Events forced the President’s hand much earlier than he had anticipated. In the early morning hours of 12 April, word reached the White House that the Soviet Union had successfully orbited its first cosmonaut, Yuri Gagarin, and that he had safely returned to Earth. The Soviet Union was quick to capitalize on the propaganda impact of the Gagarin fl ight; Nikita Khrushchev boasted, “Let the capitalist countries catch up with our country!” In the United States, both the public and Congress demanded a response to the Soviet achievement. President Kennedy called a meeting of his advisors for the late afternoon of 14 April to discuss what that response might be. Kennedy also agreed to an Exploring the Unknown 393 interview the same afternoon with Hugh Sidey, a top reporter for Life and Time magazines and someone on friendly terms with the President (as were many journalists). In preparation for that interview, Sidey prepared a set of questions and transmitted them to Presidential Press Secretary Pierre Salinger. Wiesner then prepared a background memorandum for the President’s use in responding to Sidey. (II-6, II-7) Rather than meet separately with Sidey, the President decided to let him join the meeting with Webb, Dryden and Kennedy’s top advisors; Sidey later described the meeting in a book about Kennedy. Dryden told the President that catching up with the Russians might require a crash program on the order of the Manhattan Project that developed the atomic bomb; such an effort might cost as much as $40 billion. After hearing the discussions of what might be done, according to Sidey, Kennedy’s response was “when we know more, I can decide if it’s worth it or not. If someone can just tell me how to catch up. . . . There’s nothing more important.”9 While Kennedy considered his course of action, other events reinforced his need to get something positive in place. On the morning of 17 April, Central Intelligence Agency-trained Cubans landed at the Bay of Pigs in Cuba in an attempt to foment an uprising that would result in forcing Fidel Castro to give up his leadership position. During the following two days, Kennedy and his advisors decided not to offer U.S. military support to this failing invasion; as a result, the United States looked weak and vacillating to much of the rest of the world. Kennedy had decided in December to give his Vice President, Lyndon Johnson, lead responsibility for advising him on space as the Chairman of the existing National Aeronautics and Space Council. That council had been set up as part of the 1958 Space Act, with the President as Chair. Thus legislative action was needed to give the chairmanship to the Vice President. The President signed the legislation making this change on 20 April, and on that same day wrote a historic memorandum to the Vice President, asking him “as Chairman of the Space Council to be in charge of making an overall survey of where we stand in space.” In particular, Kennedy asked, “Do we have a chance of beating the Soviets by putting a laboratory in space, or by a trip around the Moon, or by a rocket to land on the Moon, or by a rocket to go to the Moon and back with a man? Is there any other space program which promises dramatic results in which we could win?” (II-8) Vice President Johnson quickly organized the review that the President requested. On 21 April, he received a first input from the Department of Defense, which suggested that “dramatic achievements in space . . . symbolize the technological power and organizing capability of a nation” and “major achievements in space contribute to national prestige.” (Volume I, III-7) NASA’s response came a day later; the space agency told the President that There is a chance for the U.S. to be the first to land a man on the Moon and return him to Earth if a determined national effort is made. . . . It 9. Hugh Sidey, Kennedy, President (New York: Scribner, 1963), pp. 121–123. 394 Project Apollo: Americans to the Moon is doubtful that the Russians have a very great head start on the U.S. in the effort required for a manned lunar landing. Because of the distinct superiority of U.S. industrial capacity, engineering, and scientifi c know­ how, we believe that with the necessary national effort, the U.S. may be able to overcome the lead that the Russians might have up to now. NASA added “a possible target date for the earliest attempt for a manned lunar landing is 1967, with an accelerated U.S. effort.” NASA told the Vice President that the cost to carry out the overall NASA 10-year plan at a pace that would allow a fi rst attempt at a lunar landing in 1967 would be $33.7 billion through 1970. (II-9) Lyndon Johnson consulted not only government agencies, but also individuals whom he respected, as he carried out his review. One of those individuals was Wernher von Braun, who told Johnson “we have an excellent chance of beating the Soviets to the first landing of a crew on the moon (including return capability, of course) [emphasis in original].” He added, “The reason is that a performance jump by a factor 10 over their present rockets is necessary to accomplish this feat. While today we do not have such a rocket, it is unlikely that the Soviets have it. Therefore, we would not have to enter the race toward this obvious next goal in space exploration against hopeless odds favoring the Soviets.” Von Braun suggested “with an all-out crash program I think we could accomplish this objective in 1967/68.” (II-10) By 28 April, Johnson could report to the President that “the U.S. can, if it will, firm up its objectives with a reasonable chance of attaining world leadership in space during this decade.” In particular, he added, “manned exploration of the moon, for example, is not only an achievement with great propaganda value, but it is essential as an objective whether or not we are first in its accomplishment— and we may be able to be first.” (Volume I, III-8) Johnson continued his review, consulting with leading members of Congress. (Volume I, III-10) The review took place as NASA was preparing to launch the fi rst suborbital flight in Project Mercury, and there was debate within the White House regarding whether to televise the event live, given the chance of a catastrophic failure. The decision was made to do so, and on 5 May Alan Shepard became the first American to enter space on a 15-minute journey. During the same week, President Kennedy asked Johnson to travel to Southeast Asia to get a sense of the situation there and whether direct U.S. military intervention was required. Johnson wanted to get his final recommendations on space to the President before he left Washington on Monday, 8 May; this meant that those preparing the basis for those recommendations would have to work over the weekend. By the morning of 8 May, James Webb and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara signed a report titled “Recommendations for Our National Space Program: Changes, Policies, Goals.” They transmitted the report to the Vice President, saying “this document represents our joint thinking. We recommend that, if you concur with its contents and recommendations, it be transmitted to the President for his information and as a basis for early adoption and implementation of the revised and expanded objectives which it contains.” Johnson later that day did deliver the report to the President, without modification and with his Exploring the Unknown 395 concurrence; incidentally 8 May was the day on which Alan Shepard came to Washington to celebrate the success of his Mercury mission. The Webb-McNamara report called for an across-the-board acceleration of the U.S. space effort aimed at seeking leadership in all areas, not only dramatic space achievements. As its centerpiece, the report recommended our National Space Plan include the objective of manned lunar exploration before the end of this decade. It is our belief that manned exploration to the vicinity of and on the surface of the moon represents a major area in which international competition for achievement in space will be conducted. The orbiting of machines is not the same as the orbiting or landing of man. It is man, not merely machines, in space that captures the imagination of the world. A very expensive undertaking such as sending humans to the Moon was justifi ed, according to Webb and McNamara, because “this nation needs to make a positive decision to pursue space projects aimed at enhancing national prestige [emphasis in original]. Our attainments are a major element in the international competition between the Soviet system and our own. The nonmilitary, noncommercial, nonscientifi c but ‘civilian’ projects such as lunar and planetary exploration are, in this sense, part of the battle along the fluid front of the cold war.” (II-11) After a quick review of the report’s recommendations by the White House staff, Kennedy approved them. He announced his decisions at the end of an address to a joint session of Congress on 25 May 1961. He told the assemblage, and the nation, “I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth.” (Volume I, III-12) Congress quickly and without significant opposition approved the $549 million addition to NASA’s FY 1962 budget that was needed to get started on the accelerated program; this amount when added to the increase already approved in March represented an 89 percent increase of the previous year’s budget. With this initial approval in hand, NASA could begin to implement Project Apollo. Getting Started Locating the Facilities It was clear from the start of planning for Apollo that NASA would need a major new installation to manage the effort and new facilities for launching the Apollo missions. Prior to the Apollo decision, NASA had planned to move the Space Task Group, which was managing Project Mercury from its base at Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, to the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. The thinking was that all NASA missions, human and robotic, could be managed by a single Field Center. But a project of the scope of Apollo would overwhelm other activities at Goddard, and there was high political 396 Project Apollo: Americans to the Moon interest in creating a new NASA center for Apollo. This meant that Governors, Congressmen and Senators, and business representatives from a number of locations around the United States pressured NASA to consider locating the new Center in their area. In response, NASA set up a series of criteria that the new facility would have to meet, and a site survey team visited 23 potential locations. In particular, the Massachusetts political establishment put pressure on the President to consider a location in his home state, even though the proposed site did not meet all NASA’s criteria, especially a climate that would permit year- round outdoor operations. (II-14) On 19 September 1961, NASA announced that a new Manned Spacecraft Center would be located “in Houston, Texas, on a thousand acres to be made available to the government by Rice University.”10 This decision may well have been preordained. Even before President Kennedy announced his decision to go to the Moon, on 23 May, James Webb had written a memorandum to Lyndon Johnson on his return from his inspection trip to Southeast Asia to bring the Vice President up to date on what had happened in the two weeks he had been away from Washington. Webb noted that he had had several interactions with Representative Albert Thomas of Houston, who chaired the House appropriations subcommittee controlling NASA’s budget, and that “Thomas has made it very clear that he and George Brown were extremely interested in having Rice University make a real contribution” to the accelerated space effort. (Brown was head of the Houston-based construction company Brown & Root and a major political ally of Lyndon Johnson. Brown had been one of the outsiders consulted by Johnson in April as the space review was underway). (Volume II, III-7) Given the infl uence of Thomas over the NASA budget and the political links between Johnson and Brown, it would have been diffi cult to choose another location for the new Center. It was also clear to NASA that it would need to build new launch facilities for the large boosters needed for Apollo. At the time of the decision to go to the Moon, NASA was already developing the Saturn 1 rocket, with fi rst-stage thrust of 1.5 million pounds coming from a cluster of eight H-1 rocket engines, but it would not have sufficient power to launch human missions to the Moon. NASA in March had gotten White House permission to develop a more powerful Saturn 2 vehicle that added a second stage powered by engines using liquid hydrogen as their fuel. At the start of planning for lunar landing missions, NASA’s thinking focused on a new, very large launch vehicle called Nova, which would cluster eight F-1 rocket engines, each with 1.5 million pounds of takeoff thrust, as a means of carrying a spacecraft directly to the lunar surface. As NASA planning moved forward during 1961 (this process is discussed below), variations of an advanced Saturn vehicle, using three, four, and ultimately five F-1 engines in its first stage were considered. While a Saturn 1 or Saturn 2 (which never got beyond the preliminary design stage) could be launched from an existing launch pad on 10. Henry C. Dethloff, Suddenly, Tomorrow Came . . .: A History of the Johnson Space Center (Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Special Publication-4307, 1993), p. 40.