The Space Race, Yuri Gagarin, JFK and the Conspiracy that Never Happened

In 1961 Yuri Gagarin went to space, but more importantly he didn’t visit the United States immediately after. John F. Kennedy personally barred him from entering, scared of his popularity—so the Telegraph, Wikipedia, and countless blogs say. It has all the makings of a classic Cold War conspiracy theory: John F. Kennedy, fear of the Soviet Union, and the Space Race. There’s just one problem: it isn’t true. Yet while the evidence refutes this Cold War truism, it explains why the story was easily accepted. This myth says much more about the nature of the United States during the Red Scare than it does about Yuri Gagarin.

Steve Ewin explains.

Yuri Gagarin in Warsaw, Poland in 1961.

There are two main versions of the Gagarin Myth. The first, as stated in Britain’s Telegraph, is that John F. Kennedy was so alarmed by Gagarin’s popularity that he barred him from the United States. The second, as an extension of the first, is that Kennedy’s method of barring was via Executive Order.

The second version is the easiest to disprove: no executive order or proclamation exists that barred Gagarin from the United States.(1) The only references to Gagarin by Kennedy as official actions of the United States are those of congratulatory messages for his achievement.

Expanding this to other offices of the executive branch also produces no evidence. The agency responsible for enforcing bans on specific individuals fell to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Thousands of pages exist regarding Charlie Chaplin, barred from entering the United States in 1952.(2) Further, the United States Customs and Immigration Service (the INS’ successor agency) has thousands of pages of documents related to John Lennon’s attempted barring.(3) In response to a FOIA request for records related to Gagarin, none were found. The stories of Chaplin and Lennon, however, are inseparable from the Red Scare and Cold War politics.

The politics of it all

The Red Scare is what makes the first version of this myth seem plausible. In 1952 the United States Congress passed, and President Eisenhower signed, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. This act effectively barred any Soviet citizen from entry to the United States. A win trumpeted by American Cold Warriors, it quickly became a disaster for the United States abroad. A National Security Council report dated March 25 1955 states that the general travel restriction:

…placed [the US] in a paradoxical position, which is being exploited by Communist propaganda. Despite its traditional policy favoring freedom of travel and its record of having favored a liberal exchange of persons…the U.S. is being accused of maintaining an “Iron Curtain”; and these accusations are being made not only by representatives of international Communism but also by otherwise friendly persons in the free world.(4)

These restrictions were still in place during Gagarin’s goodwill tour post-space. Kennedy would not have needed a reason to personally bar Gagarin from the United States after his historic 1961 flight. He would not have been allowed in the United States by default.

There was a way around this. The Immigration Act of 1952 provided exemptions for official and diplomatic business. As the United States and the Soviet Union maintained diplomatic ties, an exemption was built into the act which allowed for members of “deportable” affiliations to be in the United States if on official business from their home governments. If Gagarin was invited to the United States as an official representative of the Soviet Union (or sent by the Soviet Union as one), the Immigration Act of 1952 would have allowed it. In the immediate aftermath of Gagarin’s flight such an invitation was recommended by the American Ambassador to the Soviet Union.(5)

Official discouragement

The timing of Gagarin’s flight was not opportune for an invitation. Five days after Gagarin’s triumphant flight the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion occurred. The American-backed attempted invasion of a major Soviet ally greatly damaged American prestige. Yet, by the time Gagarin was on a good-will tour, America had an answer. Alan Shepard became the first American in space on May 5, 1961. According to John Logsdon’s award winning book, John F. Kennedy and the Race to the Moon, worldwide reaction to Shepard’s flight was more favourable than Gagarin’s. According to a May 1961 report of the U.S. Information Agency, the United States was already winning the propaganda battle of space flights.(6)

A June 1961 State Department telegram is a not-quite-smoking gun. The formerly classified document states that “no invitation for Gagarin to visit [the] US” had been made. Further, it states that the United States government “has made efforts to discourage invitation.”(7) This is the closest document which exists to suggest that Gagarin was banned from the United States: a discouragement. With the United States riding the wave of international support brought by Shepard’s flight, there was nothing to fear about Gagarin. Within a year, however, this discouragement would be moot.

Kennedy himself lifted the general travel restrictions in 1962. This decision was made upon recommendation by Secretary of State Dean Rusk and in consultation with the Central Intelligence Agency.(8) In April 1962, White House Press Secretary Pierre Salinger wrote a memorandum stating that Gagarin was expected to be in Washington, DC that summer.(9) On July 6, 1962, the United States informed the Soviet Ambassador to the United States that the travel restrictions had been removed.(10) On October 16, 1963, Yuri Gagarin appeared before the United Nations General Assembly in New York City.

While Gagarin’s purported banishment from the United States makes for a good Cold War story, the evidence simply does not support it. Legislation, and governmental opinion, would have allowed Gagarin entry into the United States at any point, had it been politically expedient. However, due to the political climate of the Cold War and the rivalry between the United Stated and Soviet Union, the myth took root and flourished.

What do you think of Gagarin and JFK? Let us know below.

References

1 “Written Presidential Orders | The American Presidency Project,” n.d., https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/app-categories/presidential/written-presidential-orders

2 Electronic Reading Room - USCIS. “Charlie Chaplin,” December 25, 1977. Accessed April 11, 2023. https://www.uscis.gov/records/electronic-reading-room?ddt_mon=&ddt_yr=&query=Chaplin&items_per_page=10.

3 Electronic Reading Room - USCIS. “John Lennon,” December 8, 1980. Accessed April 11, 2023. https://www.uscis.gov/records/electronic-reading-room?ddt_mon=&ddt_yr=&query=john+lennon&items_per_page=10.

4 U.S. Department of State, Office of The Historian. “National Security Council Report NSC 5508/1,” March 26, 1955. Accessed April 11, 2023. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v24/d94.

5 17 April 1961, US Department of State Staff Summary, Papers of John F. Kennedy. Presidential Papers. President's Office Files. Departments and Agencies. State, 1961: April-May, pg 166/ https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/JFKPOF/088/JFKPOF-088-001?image_identifier=JFKPOF-088-001-p0001

6 J Logsdon. 2016. John F. Kennedy and the Race to the Moon. Palgrave Macmillan. 96-97.

7 State to Paris, Telegram 1839, June  26 1961, 033.6140/6-2461, 1960-63 CDF, RG59, USNA.

8 U.S. Department of State, Office of The Historian. “Memorandum From Secretary of State Rusk to President Kennedy,” April 25, 1962. Accessed April 11, 2023. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v24/d94.

9 Papers of John F. Kennedy. Presidential Papers. White House Central Subject Files. Outer Space (OS). OS: 4-1: Astronauts: General, 1962: 26 March-31 May, page 38. https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/JFKWHCSF/0655/JFKWHCSF-0655-007

10 American Foreign Policy, Current Documents. 1962. Department of State, 1966 .pp. 740-741.

Wernher von Braun – Dangerous Nazi or Hero of the Space Race? Part 4 – Was he a War Criminal?

Wernher von Braun came to America from Germany after World War II as part of Operation Paperclip. He went on to play a major role in the Cold War’s Space Race with his expertise of rockets. However, views of von Braun are being reassessed as the terrible role he played in Nazi Germany has come to the fore in recent years. Victor Gamma looks at whether von Braun was a war criminal, whether he was an Anti-Semite, and then concludes the series.

Read part 1 on von Braun’s life here, part 2 on the evidence here, and part 3 on von Braun’s beliefs here.

Above image: Von Braun with Jon F. Kennedy at Redstone Arsenal (Alabama) in 1963.

Does von Braun indeed fit the definition of a war criminal? The Nuremberg tribunal formulated three types of crimes that were punishable under law. The only one von Braun could possibly be accused of is the use of prisoners for labor contrary to international conventions and abusive conditions endured by the laborers, including slave labor; Article 6 (b) “Violations of the laws and customs of war, involving murder, ill-treatment and deportation to slave labor of the civilian population of or in occupied countries.” Count 3 of War Crimes “mistreatment of prisoners of war or civilian populations” and Count 4, Crimes Against Humanity, murder, extermination, enslavement of civilian populations; persecution on the basis of racial, religious or political grounds.” 

A conviction on any above count, though, needs documentary or eyewitness testimony. Simply working at the location where atrocities took place is not enough. For example, at the Nuremberg Trials, Hitler’s Chief of Operations, Alfred Jodl, was convicted due to, among other things, his actual signature on documents such as the infamous “Commissar Order.” This order directed German troops to summarily execute anyone identified as a Soviet Commissar. The closest thing to a von Braun “smoking gun” is a letter from November 1944 in which he advised the use of SS prisoners to replace civilians working on production in order to keep up the pace of the work. This letter clearly implicates him as working with the system in some administrative capacity and he could have been charged at least with complicity. He was not ordering atrocities, but when von Braun wrote this request, he knew full well that atrocities existed, and the horrific conditions of which he observed. He was officially encouraging the employment of slave labor.

Survivors

Long after the engineer’s death, some prisoners who had labored at Mittelwerk-Dora, came forward to finger the creator of the V-2. Some claimed that he engaged in brutality towards prisoners or at least approved of it. In 1995 a French resistance fighter named Guy Morand testified that von Braun ordered a prisoner flogged after an alleged sabotage attempt. Another French prisoner named Robert Cazabonne claimed that von Braun stood by and watched as prisoners were tortured by suspending them by chains. Another survivor, Adam Cabala, accused von Braun of visiting Buchenwald in order to select slave laborers. Some have attempted to contradict the engineer’s claims never to have witnessed a dead body. Survivors have stated that dead bodies were piled up daily near the ambulance shed at Mittelwerk. Von Braun had to pass this area during visits and so “must have” seen these bodies. Tom Gehrels, former Dutch resistance fighter, interviewed several Dora survivors who claimed to have witnessed von Braun involved in numerous atrocities. In such cases, the accusations did not come forth until over half a century since their occurrence. Von Braun was a world celebrity by 1960 and yet these survivors said nothing for decades. It is unclear why the Dora victims waited so long. The Staatliches Gymnasium Friedberg had borne the name of von Braun for over 30 years before certain individuals, including at least one Dora survivor, decided it was inappropriate. Some survivors assert that the memories were too painful to give them utterance. In addition to the amount of time passed, some are second-hand and are uncorroborated. Moreover some may be a case of mistaken identity. In other words, the witnesses were not sure. In order to bring a conviction the evidence must be beyond doubt. “Must have” does not meet the criteria. The prosecution always has the burden of proof. By these standards, von Braun would probably not have been convicted of contributing to the atrocities himself. But the space-obsessed leader of Germany’s rocket program could have been convicted of using slave labor: “a crime against humanity.”

Anti-Semite?

Was von Braun an anti-Semite? The records show no sign of it. He had very amicable relations with anyone he worked with in the defense and space programs beginning immediately after the end of the war, including those of Jewish extraction such as Abraham Silverstein and Fred Singer. It is an interesting fact that American’s victory in the Space Race was largely a collaboration of a number of Jewish and ex-Nazi scientists. In an unlikely collaboration illustrative of the great American melting pot, von Braun, the former Nazi, worked with the Jewish engineer Abraham Silverstein to make critical decisions for the Mercury and Apollo Projects. At one point the two men disagreed over certain technical aspects of the rocket design. Ultimately Silverstein’s vision won out and was used for the Saturn rockets that took astronauts to the moon. Rather than display animosity, von Braun gave full credit to Silverstein for the program’s success and even sent him a congratulatory message when Silverstein’s hydrogen-fuel approach proved successful.

Repentance?

But what about von Braun’s apparent lack of repentance? A chief complaint against the rocket scientist is what some have called a “cavalier” attitude about his Nazi past. It is true that he never officially or publicly denounced the Third Reich. Von Braun himself clearly saw his war service as a patriotic duty, not war crimes. In his words, “I have very deep and sincere regret for the victims of the V-2 rockets, but there were victims on both sides - A war is a war, and when my country is at war, my duty is to help win that war.” In 1966, he related to Paris Match “I felt ashamed that things like this were possible in Germany, even under a war situation where national survival was at stake.” But this apology was only issued after protests by Dora camp survivors, who were incensed by the laudatory treatment the space pioneer was receiving at the time. As to the use of rockets against civilian targets, von Braun defensively asserted, “We wouldn’t have treated your atomic scientists as war criminals and I didn’t expect to be treated as one.”

Conclusion

The question then remains, should Wernher von Braun be honored as a hero or erased from every public acknowledgment? As we have seen, the harsh condemnation of him as an atrocity-committing monster smiling with joy over each deadly impact of his V-2 is quite inaccurate. This has often been based on lack of knowledge and is unfair. On the other hand, the kid-glove treatment he long received, despite his awareness of atrocities and his complicity in the system must be taken into account in our discussion of the man.

From a practical standpoint, our treatment of the man’s legacy will depend much on society’s value system at that moment in time. In the post-war years it was more important to win the Space Race and keep ahead of the Soviets than to punish or condemn von Braun and his team for past misdeeds. Most people do not share Tom Lehrer's view that the moon landing was relatively unimportant. If it were, then perhaps we should focus more on von Braun’s lamentable human rights record. But if we view his post-war role as critical to our national survival and the fate of the free world, then we may overlook his earlier failings and view his contributions as a godsend. The Space Race was an undeniable turning point in global history. The entire world watched to see the results. Heroics in space, especially manned spaceflight, captured the attention of the world, including those newly independent nations the Soviet Union was courting for communism. The beaming Soviet cosmonauts were the best advertisement for the socialist utopia, which had dramatically demonstrated its superiority over the “decadent” West. Those nations sitting on the fence might have been persuaded to join the Soviet Bloc if the hammer and sickle had waved proudly on the lunar surface rather than the stars and stripes. The results could have had serious geo-political consequences. Basically, whoever won the Space Race would be considered the superior nation with the best technology and by implication, the best scientific, economic, and political system. Taken this way, von Braun’s role appears much more necessary. When the Russians exploded the H-bomb, he was one of the few who made the connection between nuclear weapons and rockets. With his knowledge of the Soviet use of German rocket scientists, he knew they were making a serious effort to overtake the West in nuclear and ballistic technology.

But to others his treatment of the slave laborers and links to the horrors of the Third Reich far outweigh any of his positive contributions. Can we celebrate the achievements of Wernher von Braun and his vital service to our nation, while at the same time acknowledging his moral lapses and not, in Neufeld’s words, engage in “profound denial?” That might be a more challenging and valuable endeavor for future generations, and the public in general, than to simply condemn the man and make him “disappear?” But that is society’s choice.

What do you think about Wernher von Braun? Let us know below.

Now, read Victor’s series on whether it was right to topple William McKinley’s statue in Arcata, California here.

References

“Chasing the Moon,” PBS Television Series

David, Heather, M., Wernher Von Braun, G.P. Putnam’s Sons: New York, 1967.

“Father of Modern Space Flight - Faith in Creator,” American Minute with Bill Federer. 

F.B.I. Affidavits on Wernher Von Braun

Wernher Von Braun, “Space Man: The Story of My Life,” American Weekly, 1958.

“Was Wernher Von Braun really a Nazi?” By Christopher Harress Al.com

Neufeld, Michael J. Von Braun: Dreamer of Space, Engineer of War, Random House, New York, 2007.

Michael Neufeld, “Wernher von Braun and the Nazis.” American Experience

Neufeld, Michael J. “Wernher Von Braun, the SS, and Concentration Camp Labor; Questions of Moral, Political, and Criminal Responsibility.” German Studies Review, Vol. 25 No. 1.

Michael Neufeld, “Wernher von Braun and the Nazi Rocket Program: An Interview with , PhD, of the National Air and Space Museum.”

Peeples, David, The Mystery of Life:What’s It All About?” 2018 by David Peeples. 

Alejandro De La Garza, “How Historians Are Reckoning With the Former Nazi Who Launched American’s Space Program” July 18, 2019 Time Magazine 

Wernher Von Braun, “My Faith,” American Weekly, February 10, 1963.

Tom Lehrer - “Wernher Von Braun”, 1965, from the Album That Was the Year That Was.

Tom Lehrer Interview in 2003

“Missile Expert Wernher Von Braun Appears On Forum Series Tonight” in The Parthenon, Marshall College Student Newspaper, Huntington W. Virginia, Sept. 25, 1959.

“Who got America to the moon? An unlikely collaboration of Jewish and former Nazi scientists and engineers” LA Times, March 1, 2020.

Mayer, Jürgen NS-Raketenproduktion der V1 und V2 in Mittelbau-Dora: Die Mittelwerk GmbH,  2019 German Edition. 

Wallace, Mike, television biography of Wernher von Braun

Arts & Entertainment, Biography (1959–1961 Television series).

“The Slave Labor Program, The Illegal Use of Prisoners of War, and The Special Responsibility of Defendants Sauckel and Speer,” Trial brief of the case against Fritz Sauckel and Albert Speer for Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes from the Nuremberg Trial documents, Harriet Zetterberg; Thomas L. Karsten; Lt., USNR; James H. Mathias, Captain, JAGD; Bernard D. Meltzer, Lt. (jg) USNR.

"Tut alles, damit dieser Name verschwindet" by Stefan Mayr, Süddeutsche Zeitung, 23 March 2012.

The First Moon Landing 50 Years On: Apollo 11 - A Legacy of Possibilities

Fifty years after Apollo 11 landed astronauts on the moon, what is the enduring legacy of humanity’s ventures beyond the Earth?  As explained by Harlan Lebo, author of 100 Days: How Four Events in 1969 Shaped America (Amazon US| Amazon UK), the answer is much broader and deeper than President Kennedy’s original vision for achievement in space.

Buzz Aldrin salutes the US flag during Apollo 11, on July 20, 1969.

On a warm summer night in 1961, two months after President John Kennedy declared a mission to the moon as a national goal, presidential advisor Theodore Sorensen sat on the front steps of his home in Washington, staring up at the heavens, and wondered about the wisdom of creating a program to send humans into outer space.

“Was it really possible,” Sorensen remembered thinking, “or was it all crazy?” 

Crazy or not, eight years later the goal was realized with the journey of Apollo 11 in July 1969 – five months before Kennedy’s deadline of reaching the moon “before the decade is out.”

While the specific goal of reaching the moon was achieved, Kennedy’s broader intention – to demonstrate to the world America’s supremacy in technology and national will – was also more than satisfied.  And if the United States not been engaged at the same time in a hopeless, endless war in Vietnam, the benefits to the nation might have been even more pronounced.

Looking back at a deeper legacy

Now, 50 years later, we can look back and ask, did Apollo spawn a lasting legacy?  The most obvious answer is yes – the US reached the moon, and with that achievement firmly established the United States as the pre-eminent leader in science and engineering of the 20thcentury.  

Thanks to Apollo, America still supports a vigorous space program – even without a current schedule of manned missions – that engages both the public and private sectors.  And we can, of course, itemize the direct benefits of our efforts in space with a tally of specific products as diverse as fire prevention fabric, improved solar cells, freeze-dried food, and medical monitoring, among hundreds of others.

But beyond those individual achievements, the enduring advances are less tangible, yet even more profound.  

The jolt of inspiration

The greatest value of Apollo to the American experience emerged from the sudden, abrupt focus of technological inspiration required to create the lunar mission – the largest financial outlay ever made by a peacetime nation.  

While one can point to the growing needs of national defense in the cold war as a catalyst for economic growth, it was the research and development across the spectrum of science required for the Apollo Program, compressed from decades into a few years in the 1960s, that acted at a breakneck speed as a formidable accelerator in advancing the nation.  The jolt supplied by the manned space program produced a trail of benefits – not only for the results achieved in space, but for the technical possibilities that the mission illuminated.  

Transcending individual inventions and products, Apollo stimulated the broad expansion of advances over a wide range of industries and fields – including many enlightened enterprises that are both profitable and progressive, such as organizations involved in precision medical equipment or alternative energy sources. 

For example, the process of creating the Apollo Guidance Computer, with its razor-thin margin of capabilities needed to support the moon missions, became a high-profile inspiration within the computer industry to create new generations of components that were more powerful, smaller, and cheaper.  

The country’s growing needs for digital technology in space programs created a thriving market – and competition – in the creation of semiconductors and related hardware for the computing industry. U.S. government projects – primarily defense and space – were the world’s largest purchasers of semiconductors – accounting for almost 70 percent of all sales – spurring production and shrinking prices. In 1962, the average price of a computer chip was $50; by 1973, the price had fallen to 63 cents. 

Beyond just shrinking the costs of technology, Apollo proved to be a powerful catalyst for the digital realm long after the missions were over – with important links to the growth of Silicon Valley and other tech crucibles. The path was clear for the development of new types of computers that did not yet exist, including computers created for individuals. Soon to come were the first personal computers in the 1970s and 1980s; the internet was not far behind. 

New leaders, new progress

This progress was possible largely because of growth in technological leadership – a new generation that rose in American business, science, and engineering thanks to the flourishing of the space program.

“Many people point to guys working in their garages in the Silicon Valley as the starting point for the technology industries of the 1980s,” said space historian Roger Launius. “But much of the innovation of that era had already come from scientists and engineers trained to work in the space program; after Apollo, these people dispersed and went everywhere – to companies, to universities, to think tanks – taking with them the knowledge they had gained from working on the space program. 

“We saw a blossoming of technology in the 1970s,” said Launius, “that was in no small part the result of the base of knowledge that built up during the space program, and that was pushed by Apollo.”

The Apollo 11 landing on the Moon was the most important peacetime achievement of the 20thcentury.   But even more important is the broad range of change inspired by Apollo that continues to touch the American experience.

Harlan Lebo’s book, 100 Days: How Four Events in 1969 Shaped America, is available here: Amazon US| Amazon UK

Astronaut Chimps – and the US Space Program in the Cold War

The space race was one of the key battlegrounds during the Cold War. And as the space race became ever more important during the 1950s and 1960s, chimps became a key part of the US space program. Andrew Walls explains.

Ham the chimp, prior to his test flight in January 1961.

The era of the spacefaring chimp

The era of the rocket monkeys was a confusing one. Both for the chimps themselves and for those working towards the eventual moon landing. The Cold War was in full swing and the American and Soviet space programs were battling for ideological supremacy. The Soviets had just sent two dogs, Belka and Strelka, up into the Earth’s orbit and had touched them down safely.

The American public wanted a similar milestone for the American space program. So when Ham touched down in the Mercury capsule the public treated him not like a research animal and more like a “short, hairy astronaut”. Gifts and flowers began arriving for Ham. People wanted his autograph. He was one of those golden age American heroes that made people weep with pride.

This didn’t thrill Alan Shepard, who was to go up following Ham’s safe return to prove its safety for humans. Neither really piloted the craft. They both just sat there and let the guys on the ground prove the flights were safe. Alan Shepard in short wasn’t thrilled with this monkey stealing his thunder and reasonably chose not to attend the furry American hero’s funeral some years later.

Space Chimps Made In America

Albert was the first chimponaut to be launched into space. The term launched is right because they strapped him to a V-2 rocket and let him suffocate during the flight. Albert ll, his successor, was killed when the V-2 rocket he was strapped to had a parachute failure. During this suicidal flight Albert ll became the first monkey in space after passing the Karman line of 100km above sea level. In fact the first Albert to survive the landing was Albert Vl, who along with his 11 mouse crewmates touched down safely. However, once they touched down, the monkeys weren’t finished yet.

Next came the battery of medical tests which ascertained what impacts, if any, weightlessness and other phenomena of space travel had on them. They wisely stopped numbering the chimps and just started giving them nicknames. So “Baker” was the first chimp to survive both the flight and the post flight operations. At the age of 27, Baker was buried on the grounds of the United States Space & Rocket Center. Ham, our American hero and Enos, his successor, were the two most well-known astrochimps but there were many others who lived and died with little fanfare.

Ham the chimp is welcomed back with a 'handshake' after his January 1961 flight on the Mercury Redstone rocket.

Furious George

Beyond the States, Russia, France, Argentina and Iran have all launched their own chimps - most of whom also perished during their flights. Astronauts dying mid-flight has always been horrendous for space programs. The Columbia and Challenger disasters crippled the American space program. So for riskier flights, especially during the initial testing phases, it made sense to send a chimp who will garner far less media attention in the event of a malfunction. Chimps are very similar to humans biologically and it is reasonable to assume that any effects they experience from space flight could also be experienced by a human.

What most people don’t realize is scientists of the time had no idea of what to expect from people in space. No person had ever been that far from the ground before. It just hadn’t been possible. We know now that people are fine in space with the appropriate precautions being taken. At the time, however, they were just guessing. Would lessened gravity distort people’s eyeballs and blind them? Maybe the change in weight of body parts would restrict movement, leaving the pilot unable to control the ship at altitude. Would the space radiation kill people before they could safely land? NASA, the Soviet space program and the rest of the world had absolutely no clue. So they sent up chimps and hoped for the best.

Monkey Business

The use of chimps in aerospace was an unfortunate necessity of the time. A space program that had as many astronauts die as chimps did would have been cancelled and condemned very quickly. Chimps were a necessary sacrifice in the vital quest for information. But I want to finish this story with a happy ending. One about what happened to the chimps after the space programs no longer needed them. This story reinforces where using chimps or any surrogates as research tools can go wrong when the agency using them doesn’t respect them as intelligent organisms.

In the 1970s the Air Force decided it no longer needed its chimp colony. The space race was finished; they had all the information launching chimps could give them. So they began leasing them to medical facilities in New York and New Mexico State. That lasted for a while.

Gorilla Warfare

Then in 1997 they decided to officially “retire” them forever. Luckily that didn’t mean putting them to sleep. The Air Force would instead sell the chimps on the open market. In a mock “bidding” process, they only considered one bid, which came from The Coulston Foundation. This foundation had a horrendous track record of animal cruelty and had once had 300 chimps seized because of negligent care. Important people asked that instead these chimps go to a sanctuary.

They still had memories of Ham and other chimp sacrifices in the Space Race and wanted these chimps to be treated with some respect and dignity. Here’s where Dr. Carole Noon comes in. With the backing of Dr. Jane Goodall and Dr. Roger Fouts, Noon fought hard for the chimps to be moved to a sanctuary. The Air Force, in what they must have thought was a “show of good faith”, awarded 30 chimps to Dr. Noon and the rest to The Coulston Foundation. Dr. Noon was less than pleased. She raised the funds herself and built a sanctuary in Florida. After a year-long court battle she finally won custody of the remaining 21 chimps and moved them to her sanctuary. Today she operates the Save the Chimp foundation which is where these chimps are living out their days peacefully and without testing.

Chimpy Meadows

A life of rest and peace is a fitting end for the descendants of the monkeys who helped us reach space. But the fact that the Air Force was going to condemn them to an abusive testing facility reaffirms the lack of respect they have for these animals’ intelligence and their contribution to the space program. Moving forward it would serve any agency using animals for testing to consider the following: Will this test give us information that could not be obtained otherwise? Can we use people instead without putting those people through some significant risk? And in the event they do decide animals are necessary: Are we treating these animals with respect and dignity both during the testing process and afterwards?

Thank you astro-chimps the world over for your sacrifices. You may not realize it, but you’ve helped to start something which could change humanity’s destiny forever.

For more of Andrew Walls’ writing visit his space and entrepreneurship blog: Landing Attempts.

Out of respect for the chimps discussed in this article, Landing Attempts has made a donation to the Save The Chimps Foundation founded by Dr. Noon. Save the Chimps works to reclaim and house chimps affected by biomedical testing facilities. They deserve our support and respect.

Sources

Roach, Mary. Packing for Mars. http://www.maryroach.net/packing-for-mars.html

Cassidy, David and Davy Kristin. Space Chimps. http://www.spacechimps.com/theirstory.html

Wall, Mike. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/monkeys-in-space-a-brief-spaceflight-history/

The Space Race! How Consumers powered the American Space Industry

The American space program was a key part of the Cold War, especially after the Soviet Union propelled a human into space before the U.S. did. The U.S. government initially hugely supported the industry, and here Jeneane Piseno explains the role of the American consumer in supporting the space industry - and how the industry has evolved since the end of the Cold War.

The joint U.S.-Soviet crew of the 1975 Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, the first two-nation cooperative space mission.

Cold War Consumerism

On October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union propelled humanity into outer space via Sputnik, launching a national purpose for the United States aimed at preeminence on several fronts including military, technology, ideology, and culture.[i]  Space, the new battleground in the Cold War, mandated the necessity of a national organization to deliver international superiority. Thus, on July 29, 1958, President Eisenhower signed into law the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Act, establishing a government-supported civilian agency responsible for peaceful enterprises in outer space.

NASA’s mission to thrust Americans to the forefront of global leadership also ignited one of its most important assets, the consumer market. The space-age consumer provided momentum to policies produced by the convergence of the Cold War and technological developments in both government and corporate sectors. The objective to form a national identity through legislation, innovation, and mass advertising transported American leadership to outer space from the 1950s through the beginning of the twenty-first century. 

Free Market Culture

Thus, Cold War consumerism impacted the onset of the “space race” by shaping modern cultural attitudes towards spending based on political superiority.  Post World War Two spending focused on the perception of power presented to the public by capitalizing on selling a free market ideology.[ii]  For example, at the height of the Cold War, consumer advertisers unleashed a barrage of technological prospects aimed at securing freedom from the evils of Communism.

Products that materialized in the 1950s and 1960s captured the emotions of “ordinary American families” as a result of post-World War Two geopolitical and economic technological development.[iii]  Rocket design, nuclear fusion production, and fear of Communism reinforced policy and legislation aimed at the “space race”, which in turn influenced the economy through the production of consumer goods. Influence in this sphere resulted in accelerated research in science, technology, and defense intended to provide Americans with the biggest and best of everything, including the vehicle that propelled them to the Moon. The Cold War marketed the idea that “a thrill would come from fascinating new products” inspired by space-age technology.[iv]

The Space Industry

At the height of the Apollo program, government spending on space reached unprecedented levels, causing Congress and media representatives to take a closer look at the reasons for U.S. domination of the space environment. Escalating costs reinforced delays in mission operations, which in turn drove up costs. As the threat of global Communism slowly ebbed in the late 1980s, once staunch advocates of the American space leadership model abdicated their support in favor of more private sector participation.  Although the private sector characteristically supported space exploration initiatives, reliance on commercial capabilities rose in the field of robotics and aeronautics, grounding any notion of manned space-flight activities beyond low Earth orbits, thus minimizing the exhibition of space in popular culture.

While more commercial involvement, such as the development of launch technologies; the construction of the international space station; and scientific and medical research enhanced production capabilities, the consumer attraction to “space race” related merchandise eventually declined. However, with help from Hollywood films like Star Wars, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, this market emerged as a subset of popular culture and helped keep space interests alive. Consumer goods continued to display alien fascination through the marketing efforts of the entertainment industry.  Furthermore, American innovation, NASA, and the space transportation system (STS) created a symbolic American icon that represented global supremacy which helped foster consumer interest in outer space.

National Identity

Presidents from Kennedy to Bush ‘43 further recognized the importance of an American presence in outer space and the necessity of commercial expansion and support of this endeavor. Interests outlined in their respective space policies sanctioned private sector contributions as part of the national mission.  Each president recognized the vital importance of continuing research into aeronautical development and environmental science, areas of research application resulting from the national space program.  With the end of the STS, a vision for future transportation and space-oriented goals evolved in the Orion spacecraft development and Constellation human spaceflight program defined in the Vision for Outer Space Exploration and the NASA Authorization Act of 2005. This act specifically called for expanded private-sector contribution toward outer-space exploration.

Thus, in 2010 the U.S. space program reduced its responsibility concerning the management of space exploration in favor of commercial leadership in human outer-space endeavors. The impact of diminished American global importance as the intrepid helmsman signified a reduced geopolitical dominance, but also created opportunities to lead on multiple platforms in the private sector.

Ascertaining the connection between the reduction in authority of the national symbol and the expanded industrial complex seems simple: in a market economy the private-sector acknowledges the burden of responsibility for seemingly discretional government spending.  But this shift in fiscal responsibility possibly surrenders influence of the future American presence in space. Maneuvering from the “national identity” posture towards a solely business infrastructure also begs the question of who will pilot commercial ventures in outer-space, establish ethical responsibility and government, or even organize any type of social structure for the people of Earth in a more universal context.  

The Space Consumer

Just how did the United States government rely upon the modern consumer market and commercial entities to promote an American presence in outer space in order to achieve global preeminence?  The answer: the birth of the space consumer. The story of this interstellar customer reveals a strategy of commercial transition in American space endeavors through an apparent magnitude of policy, technology, and media.

Research in the field on the Cold War, the nuclear arms race, the space race, and consumerism reveal that many factors played a role in the promotion of American leadership in the latter half of the twentieth century, but the most prominent strategy for American success appeared in mass consumption. For example, in the 1950s and 1960s homes displayed modern kitchens and appliances, through the deployment of communications satellites, millions of people witnessed television, heard more radio broadcasts; and ordinary people enjoyed overall economic improvement over their Soviet counterparts, enticing them to purchase products.[v] Additionally, Americans purchased toys, automobiles with rocket-shaped fins and cruise control, space food sticks and energy drinks and snacks.

Pop Culture

Initially, the American image arguably made the greatest contribution to space program because it became synonymous with freedom and success. Later, as the “space race” fervor subsided, an atmosphere of cooperation drove consumer interests into space, reflecting a greater commercial involvement with the general public through a subset of space consumerism primarily through the entertainment industry. The commercialization of space through media occurred well before Star Wars entered the market place. Movies dating back to the beginning of the “space race” often included themes related to the Cold War and the possibility of either invasion by aliens, or unification of Earth against other terrestrial forces, or of human manifest destiny to conquer space. Movies such as Destination Moon (1950), The Day the Earth Stood Still, and When Worlds Collide (1951), Invaders From Mars, It Came From Outer Space, and Invasion of the Body Snatchers, War of the Worlds (1953), Spaceflight IC-1(1965), all tapped into the alien-contact market.[vi] The outer space ethos allowed Hollywood producers to capitalize on associated cultural influences through the medium of film creating an explosive subculture in outer-space entertainment. Additionally, Hollywood movies served as glamorous and alluring advertisements for the possibility of a Western or American standard of living through the continued expansion of space-related endeavors, one of the primary foundations supporting the exceptional position of the United States existed in consumerism.

The transition in private-sector involvement that resulted in a heavy reliance on consumer power to market its position in the world presented the realization that glamorizing the American image at home and abroad was a key factor to a successful space program. The U.S. government accomplished this task through purchasing power, media advertising, technological exhibitionism and commercialism. Commerce established early on between government and civilian entities, including the military and corporate organizations, contributed to the ongoing technological advances well into the twenty-first century.

By 2010, the nearly total reliance of commercial organizations to facilitate the continued American presence in outer-space exploration represented another perspective from which to examine future activities space. Though the onset of the space program was born out of a military mission, consumerism played a key role in its continued existence. Today, government participation reflects the growth of the commercial sector as it takes on the majority of the responsibility for building, operating, and possibly eventually deciding upon what future goals to strive for, what challenges and risks to accept, and in what form established space structures will exist. This exceptional journey will no doubt continue advancing at light speed with the space spender at the helm.

Did you find this article of interest? If so, tell the world! Tweet about it, like it, or share it by clicking on one of the buttons below…

[i] Richard Fox and T.J. Jackson Lears, The Culture of Consumption: Critical Essays in American History,1880-1980. (New York: Pantheon Books ,1983). 177.

[ii] Stephen Bates. “Cold War, Hot Kitchen. “Wilson Quarterly 33, no. 3(Summer 2009:12-13). American History and Life. (Accessed August 1, 2012).

[iii] Roland Marchand,. Creating the Corporate Soul: The Rise of Public Relations and Corporate Imagery in American Big Business. (Berkley: University of California Press, 1998). 313.

[iv] Ibid, 341

[v] Victorian De Grazia. Irresistible Empire: America’s Advance Through Twentieth Century Europe. (Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University, 2005). 100-125.

[vi] Science fiction films about space. http://www.cinemacom.com/50s-sci-fi-BEST.html