WE CHOOSE TO GO

TO THE MOON
A Logical Analysis by Derek Fermaint

MESA COMMUNITY COLLEGE HONORS

Philosophy of Logic
 Fermaint 1

 Fermaint 2

Derek Fermaint
Professor Debbie Campbell
PHI103, Honors Philosophy of Logic
November 1st, 2015

We Choose to Go to the Moon

This paper is an analysis of logical arguments and fallacies presented by John F. Kennedy

during his “We Choose to Go to the Moon” speech. A summary of the political speech will be

given to set up the analysis. After which the main argument of the speech will be given in

standard logical form. The analysis of the main argument will be given, whether deductive or

inductive, cogent or sound. Attached to the essay, before the citations, is a list of any informal

fallacies identified throughout the speech at the end of the paper. Furthermore, a copy of the full

text of the speech is attached at the end for reference.

The United States of America established space dominancy when it was the first country

to put a human on the moon during the Apollo 11 mission on July 20th, 1969. This mission was

made possible by the determination and creativity from the greatest engineering and scientific

minds at the time, as well as funding. In 1962, John F. Kennedy campaigned for what would then

become the Apollo 11 mission and persuaded the American people that funding should be

allocated to such a mission. Despite the fact that the mission was funded as a political response

to Russia, John F. Kennedy demonstrated more vision and inspiration in one speech than any

speech by any politician that came after it. On September 12, 1962 in front of a large crowd

gathered at Rice Stadium in Houston, Texas, John F. Kennedy set the tone of the speech by

instilling a deep respect for what humanity has accomplished,

 Fermaint 3

“No [one]1 can fully grasp how far and how fast we have come, but condense, if
you will, the 50,000 years of [humanity’s] recorded history in a time span of but a
half-century. Stated in these terms, we know very little about the first 40 years,
except at the end of them advanced [humans] had learned to use the skins of
animals to cover them. Then about 10 years ago, under this standard, [humans]
emerged from his caves to construct other kinds of shelter. Only five years ago
[humans] learned to write and use a cart with wheels. Christianity began less
than two years ago. The printing press came this year, and then less than two
months ago, during this whole 50-year span of human history, the steam engine
provided a new source of power.
Newton explored the meaning of gravity. Last month electric lights and
telephones and automobiles and airplanes became available. Only last week did
we develop penicillin and television and nuclear power, and now if America's new
spacecraft succeeds in reaching Venus, we will have literally reached the stars
before midnight tonight.
This is a breathtaking pace, and such a pace cannot help but create new ills as it
dispels old, new ignorance, new problems, new dangers. Surely the opening vistas
of space promise high costs and hardships, as well as high reward.” (Kennedy)
Today, is it quite rare to find a politician who speaks in timescales beyond a fiscal-quarter

or a two-term window. When we are able to objectively view the human species from 50,000

years ago to today, it is quite astonishing how much we have collectively accomplished during

our very short tenure on Earth. Let’s give perspective. Clair Patterson, a geophysicist at Caltech,

compared lead type ratios found in meteorites and to the ratios found in Earth rocks, and

concluded that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old (Vergano). A team led by Andrea Manica at the

University of Cambridge concluded the “out of Africa” theory, or that early homo-sapiens spread

out and colonized the planet after originating in Africa some 50,000 years ago (Owen).

50,000 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑠 𝑜𝑓 ℎ𝑜𝑚𝑜 − 𝑠𝑎𝑝𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑠

∙ 100 ≈ 0.0000011%
4,500,000,000,000 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐸𝑎𝑟𝑡ℎ

In only approximately 0.0000011% of Earth’s time, humans have been able to climb

down from the trees and out of the caves, create advanced jet propulsion engines, and leap into

1
Replaced “man” with “human” and “humanity” for gender-neutral inclusive language.

 Fermaint 4

the stars. Imagine what extraordinary feats humanity will accomplish in yet another 50,000

years! This simple fact has immense ways of igniting a culture to do even more extraordinary

things and collectively work towards an ends that is beyond themselves, especially when the

message is sent from the President of the United States. John F. Kennedy doesn’t stop in

immensity, however, and continues to inspire,

“But if I were to say, my fellow citizens, that we shall send to the moon, 240,000
miles away from the control station in Houston, a giant rocket more than 300 feet
tall, the length of this football field, made of new metal alloys, some of which have
not yet been invented, capable of standing heat and stresses several times more
than have ever been experienced, fitted together with a precision better than the
finest watch, carrying all the equipment needed for propulsion, guidance, control,
communications, food and survival, on an untried mission, to an unknown
celestial body, and then return it safely to earth, re-entering the atmosphere at
speeds of over 25,000 miles per hour, causing heat about half that of the
temperature of the sun--almost as hot as it is here today--and do all this, and do it
right, and do it first before this decade is out--then we must be bold.” (Kennedy)
It is naïve not to factor in the risks and costs of a daring mission, especially that which

has not yet been done before. It is especially important to acknowledge that in order to do what

has no yet been done before, we must be bold. Often today, a common argument against funding

space exploration research, is that there are many problems on Earth, and that we need to solve

those before we fund extremely risky, complex research. Well, there were many problems in

Spain in 1492 when Christopher Columbus set sail for the new world, and there continue to be

problems in Spain today. However, the investment made in that exploration has benefited

humanity in unmeasurable ways. It is difficult to quantify the exact impact that research has on

new frontiers, however it is proven time and time again that it’s an important endeavor. We must

be bold to fund this research, and there will be mistakes. That is why it’s important that the

public appreciate the researchers who are uncovering the edges of their frontier. These endeavors

 Fermaint 5

must be funded by the public sector, because no private sector company can afford to invest in

the complex risks involved, as they will risk bankruptcy themselves.

How do we determine whether the arguments I’ve presented for space exploration are

good arguments? We analyze them. Let’s outline two different argument types, and then analyze

Kennedy’s main argument presented in the speech. The two different argument types are

deductive arguments, and inductive arguments.

A deductive argument is an argument incorporating the claim that it is “impossible for

the conclusion to be false given that the premises are true” (Hurley, pg. 33). A deductive

argument builds its logical structure such that if the premises are true, it must follow that the

conclusion is true. An example of a deductive argument:

P1: An astronaut candidate must pass the JAR-FCL 3 Class 2 aeromedical fitness
test in order to be eligible to become an astronaut.
P2: Derek Fermaint passed the JAR-FCL 3 Class 2.
C: Therefore, Derek Fermaint is eligible to become an astronaut.
In the above example, if premise 1 and premise 2 are true, then it necessarily follows that the

conclusion is true. If an argument is deductive, we can perform further analysis to conclude

whether the argument is valid or invalid, and sound or unsound. An argument is considered valid

if the conclusion logically follows from the premises. As we can see in the above, we can see

that the conclusion logically follows from the premise. If P2 were stated as,

P2: Derek Fermaint passed the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam.

Then there would be no logical link from the first premise to the second premise to the

conclusion, as the FE exam is not a condition that must be met to secure eligibility to become an

astronaut. If a deductive argument is both valid and all premises true, then the argument is

 Fermaint 6

considered a sound argument. A sound argument is the strongest argument that can be presented,

and is usually found in mathematics. 2 + 2 = 4 cannot be refuted, by definition.

If an argument cannot measure in absolute certainty but rather probabilities, it is an

inductive argument. An inductive argument incorporates the claim that it is “improbable that the

conclusion is false given that the premises are true” (Hurley, pg. 33). An example of an inductive

argument would be as such,

P1: If tomorrow’s sky is cloudless and calm, then the weather will permit a rocket

launch to provide supplies to the International Space Station.

P2: The weather forecaster has reported that tomorrow there is a high probability

of low dewpoint and a high of 88° Fahrenheit.

C: Therefore, the Soyuz Spacecraft will probably be launching tomorrow.

Instead of analyzing inductive arguments for validity, the argument is measured for

strength of the probabilities. We can see that this argument is one based on a prediction, whereas

the conclusion proceeds based on knowledge of the past to determine the future. To verify if the

above example is a strong or weak inductive argument, the probability of the conclusion being

false given the premises are true must be factored. That is to say, if the first and second premise

are true, is it highly likely or highly unlikely that the conclusion is false? We can see in the

example that if the Soyuz requires clear, calm skies and the weather forecaster reports a high

probability of there being clear, calm skies, we can conclude that it is improbable that the

conclusion will be false. Therefore, the example is a strong inductive argument. If we change the

second premise to,

 Fermaint 7

P2: The weather forecaster has reported that tomorrow there is a low probability

of low dewpoint and a high of 88° Fahrenheit.

Ceteris paribus, the argument would then be considered as a weak inductive argument, as

the conclusion would not be probable given the second premise. Furthermore, if an inductive

argument is strong as well as its premises being true, the argument is then a cogent argument.

Cogent arguments are found often in science and scientific research when testing a hypothesis.

For example, if we know that the Sun has risen from the Eastern Hemisphere relative to the Earth

every single morning, then we can make a strong case that tomorrow the Sun will rise from the

East. However, we can think of scenarios where that might not be the case, such as if the Sun

implodes or if the Earth changes its orbital trajectory. Since these scenarios are highly unlikely

given our limited knowledge, we can make the prediction that “tomorrow the Sun is going to rise

in the East” as a cogent argument.

With these definitions as the background of our logical analysis, let’s consider the

argument presented forth from John F. Kennedy. This is what Kennedy argued for in 1962,

presented in standard logical form:

P1: Humans are inherently inventors, to be human is to push the boundaries of the
unknown.
P2: The vows of this nation can only be fulfilled if we are the first in exploration and
scientific discovery, to become the world’s leading space-faring nation.
P3: The growth of our science and education will be enriched by our new knowledge of
the universe and environment.
C: Therefore, we must go to the moon before this decade is out.2
In order to analyze the logic of John F. Kennedy’s argument, we must first (1) answer

whether the premises support the conclusion, (2) conclude whether it is a deductive argument or

2
Standard form presented as paraphrased excerpts from John F. Kennedy.

 Fermaint 8

an inductive argument. (3a) If the argument is deductive, we must verify if it is valid or invalid,

then verify if the argument is sound or unsound. (3b) If the argument is inductive, we must verify

if it is strong or weak, then verify if the argument is cogent or uncogent.

(1) If we follow premise one, premise two and premise three, we can make a logical

connection to the conclusion. That is to say, does each premise link to one another and does the

conclusion follow from the aggregate meaning of the premises? This can be represented

symbolically as,

𝑃B + 𝑃C + 𝑃D = 𝐶

Since we can conclude that going to the moon is a conclusion that follows humans

inherently being inventors, the United States needing to be first in science, and science education

expanding if the frontiers are pushed, this conclusion follows the premises. Therefore we can

conclude that the premises support the conclusion.

(2) To determine if the argument is deductive or inductive, we must temporarily disregard

the truth value of each premise and assume each premise is true. We will test to see if the

argument is deductive by seeing if it is impossible for the conclusion to be false given that the

premises are true. If humans are inherently inventors, and if the vows of the United States can

only be fulfilled if they are to become the first in science exploration and if the growth of the

nation’s education will be enriched by new discoveries, then must it be the case that the United

States must go to the moon?

It requires only one example of a different conclusion that can be drawn from the

premises to make the claim that it doesn’t have to be the case that the United States must go to

the moon. In this scenario, the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises only when the

 Fermaint 9

implicit argument of P2 is taken into account. The United States can make innovations in several

fields and become first in those, but during this time the Soviet Union was planning on going to

the moon and establishing space dominancy. Throughout the text of Kennedy’s speech, he only

makes comparison of the Soviet Union once to the United States. Kennedy never directly, or

explicitly, makes the claim that the United States must be the first to reach the moon or else

Russia will gain space dominancy and point nuclear warheads at the United States from space.

Considering Kennedy never explicitly makes the claim, the conclusion is then hinged on

P2, and considering we can think of other fields of science and technology in which the United

States could become the leaders in at the time (biotechnology, computing, physics, medical, etc.)

then it is not impossible for the conclusion to be false given that the premises are true. Therefore,

Kennedy’s argument is inductive. Although it does not have to be the case that the United States

go to the moon, we can still conclude that it is highly likely that the United States must go to the

moon.

(3b) An inductive argument can be either weak or strong, cogent or uncogent.

Considering the argument was closely related to a deductive argument, hinging on one piece of

logic, we can initially suspect this argument to be strong. A strong inductive argument is one

where it is improbable that the conclusion is false given the premises are true. A weak inductive

argument is one where the conclusion does not follow probably from the premises, even though

it is claimed to. A cogent argument is a strong inductive argument where the premises are true,

an uncogent argument is a “weak inductive argument, has one or more false premises, fails to

meet the total evidence requirement, or any combination of these” (Hurley, pg. 52).

Reconsider what was concluded from the inductive/deductive analysis. The argument

was insufficient in one piece of evidence that would have presented the argument as deductive.

 Fermaint 10

However, because even though it does not have to be the case that the United States go to the

moon based on the premises, because they can innovate in other scientific fields, it is still highly

probable that the United States go to the moon. Because the conclusion is highly probable, this

argument is considered a strong inductive argument. To verify whether this argument is cogent,

we must now verify the truth of the premises. Recall that a cogent argument is a strong inductive

argument that has all true premises. Let us analyze the truth value of each premise sequentially.

P1: Humans are inherently inventors, to be human is to push the boundaries of the
unknown.
To determine if this premise is true, we must consider what it means to be human. Being human

has different meanings for everyone, but I would like to make the claim that P1 is true based on

the following evidence. Homo sapiens differ from other animals on the planet by the ability to

create tools. We create the tools, and then the tools create us. Kennedy makes this point in the

beginning of his speech in reference to the last 50,000 years of human inventions. Humans

learned how to use the skins of animals, create shelters, invented the wheel, the printing press,

the steam engine, discovered gravity, electricity, and penicillin. In light of this, Kennedy makes

the statement, “No [human] can fully grasp how far and how fast we have come […]” 3 while

acknowledging that despite the fact that it is a complex endeavor for one human to measure and

predict the outcomes of the aggregate, one thing is for certain: to be human is to push the

boundaries of the unknown.

3
Replaced “man” with “human” for gender-neutral inclusive language.

 Fermaint 11

Concluding that P1 is true, we can move on to the next premise, P2.

P2: The vows of this nation can only be fulfilled if we are the first in exploration and
scientific discovery, to become the world’s leading space-faring nation.
This has been proven in history that the strongest nation is that which not only has access to the

most resources but also to that of intellectual resource, science and technology. It is that country

which has the most advanced science and technology that determines the course of the other

nations and thus, humanity. Kennedy put it this way, “If this capsule history of our progress

teaches us anything, it is that [humanity4], in his quest for knowledge and progress, is

determined and cannot be deterred. The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it

or not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation which expects to be the

leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in the race for space” (Kennedy). To verify this

claim, look no further than some of the leading nations today. China, which has distinguished

itself as the world leader in high-tech manufacturing, also has a strong space program, the China

National Space Program (CNSA). The CNSA has plans to build a permanent space station as

well as crewed expeditions to Mars. Russia, who has distinguished itself in physics and

electrical engineering, also has a strong space program, the Russian Federal Space Agency, or

Roscosmos (RKA). Russian cosmonauts have collaborated with American astronauts in the past

on the International Space Station. These nations fulfill their vows to be leading nations by

having a strong science program.

4
Replaced “man” with “human” for gender-neutral inclusive language.

 Fermaint 12

The third premise, P3, must also be verified of its truth value.

P3: The growth of our science and education will be enriched by our new
knowledge of the universe and environment.
This statement can be verified whether true or false by reviewing how the understanding

of new knowledge of the universe and environment has affected our science and education

systems. Because of our efforts in space exploration, society benefits from light-emitting diodes

(LEDs), infrared ear thermometers, artificial limbs, pollution remediation, solar technology,

better software applications, and many more. Furthermore, space exploration has launched

thousands of new companies and jobs, inspiring science fiction writers and technology geeks

alike. There are also unquantifiable aspects of what space exploration does to society, such as

inspiring a nation to work out the challenging problems of tomorrow and wanting to make the

future a reality. Space exploration benefits society in ways that cannot be directly measured, but

felt.

Having demonstrated that P1, P2 and P3 are all true, and having demonstrated that

Kennedy’s argument is a strong and inductive, it then follows that Kennedy’s argument is

cogent.

This paper has provided a logical analysis of John F. Kennedy’s “We Choose to Go to the

Moon” speech, and verified through logical analysis that Kennedy’s argument is cogent. Today,

when a politician gives a speech about specific problems that must be addressed, often the

problem is discussed in detail, and the solution is only vaguely addressed. When probed further,

the deep divide between political parties in the United States are often to blame. It has been said

that a good leader is one whom unites diverse groups of people, who may have diverse

ideologies and cultures, and creates a unique environment in which individuals work together to

 Fermaint 13

make the impossible a reality. Kennedy’s speech united everyone under a common banner, in

which all shared the common vision that science and technology would solve the world’s

greatest problems. The nation needs a strong leader who’s capable of uniting groups of diverse

backgrounds and ideologies together under a single cause. If it is through knowledge that the

world’s problems have been created, it is not through ignorance that they will be solved. We

must choose to do the hard things, the things that matter. We’ve proven to ourselves that we are

capable of doing the impossible, and it is imperative that we must again do the impossible. Not

because they are easy, but because they are hard.

 Fermaint 14

SEQUENTIAL LIST OF INFORMAL FALLACIES THROUGHOUT KENNEDY’S SPEECH:

1. “We meet at a college noted for knowledge, in a city noted for progress, in a State noted

for strength…” Appeal to Vanity Fallacy

2. “Newton explored the meaning of gravity…” Appeal to the People Fallacy

3. “So it is not surprising that some would have us stay where we are […]. This country was

conquered by those who moved forward--and so will space.” Missing the Point Fallacy

4. “Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the

industrial revolutions […] and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash

of the coming age of space.” Bandwagon Fallacy

5. “But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask

why climb the highest mountain?” Straw Person Fallacy

6. “That budget now stands at $5,400 million a year--a staggering sum, though somewhat

less than we pay for cigarettes and cigars every year.” Weak Analogy Fallacy

7. “…asked why did he want to climb it. He said, ‘Because it is there.’” Begging the

Question Fallacy

8. “Well, space is there, and we're going to climb it […] therefore, as we set sail we ask

God's blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which

man has ever embarked.” False Cause, Begging the Question Fallacy

 Fermaint 15

Citations

Kennedy, John F. “Moon Speech – Rice Stadium” NASA 12 Sept. 1962. Web.

Hurley, Patrick J. A Concise Introduction to Logic. University of San Diego: Cengage Learning,

2008. Print.

Vergano, Dan. “How Do We Know the Age of the Earth?” USA Today 29 Nov. 2012. Web.

Owen, James. “Modern Humans Came Out of Africa, ‘Definitive’ Study Says” National

Geographic 18 July, 2007. Web.

 Fermaint 16

TEXT OF PRESIDENT JOHN KENNEDY'S RICE STADIUM MOON SPEECH

(Courtesy of NASA)

President Pitzer, Mr. Vice President, Governor, Congressman Thomas, Senator Wiley, and

Congressman Miller, Mr. Webb, Mr. Bell, scientists, distinguished guests, and ladies and

gentlemen:

I appreciate your president having made me an honorary visiting professor, and I will assure you

that my first lecture will be very brief.

I am delighted to be here, and I'm particularly delighted to be here on this occasion.

We meet at a college noted for knowledge, in a city noted for progress, in a State noted for

strength, and we stand in need of all three, for we meet in an hour of change and challenge, in a

decade of hope and fear, in an age of both knowledge and ignorance. The greater our knowledge

increases, the greater our ignorance unfolds.

Despite the striking fact that most of the scientists that the world has ever known are alive and

working today, despite the fact that this Nation¹s own scientific manpower is doubling every 12

years in a rate of growth more than three times that of our population as a whole, despite that, the

vast stretches of the unknown and the unanswered and the unfinished still far outstrip our

collective comprehension.

No man can fully grasp how far and how fast we have come, but condense, if you will, the

50,000 years of man¹s recorded history in a time span of but a half-century. Stated in these terms,

we know very little about the first 40 years, except at the end of them advanced man had learned

to use the skins of animals to cover them. Then about 10 years ago, under this standard, man

 Fermaint 17

emerged from his caves to construct other kinds of shelter. Only five years ago man learned to

write and use a cart with wheels. Christianity began less than two years ago. The printing press

came this year, and then less than two months ago, during this whole 50-year span of human

history, the steam engine provided a new source of power.

Newton explored the meaning of gravity. Last month electric lights and telephones and

automobiles and airplanes became available. Only last week did we develop penicillin and

television and nuclear power, and now if America's new spacecraft succeeds in reaching Venus,

we will have literally reached the stars before midnight tonight.

This is a breathtaking pace, and such a pace cannot help but create new ills as it dispels old, new

ignorance, new problems, new dangers. Surely the opening vistas of space promise high costs

and hardships, as well as high reward.

So it is not surprising that some would have us stay where we are a little longer to rest, to wait.

But this city of Houston, this State of Texas, this country of the United States was not built by

those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them. This country was conquered by

those who moved forward--and so will space.

William Bradford, speaking in 1630 of the founding of the Plymouth Bay Colony, said that all

great and honorable actions are accompanied with great difficulties, and both must be enterprised

and overcome with answerable courage.

If this capsule history of our progress teaches us anything, it is that man, in his quest for

knowledge and progress, is determined and cannot be deterred. The exploration of space will go

ahead, whether we join in it or not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation

which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in the race for space.

 Fermaint 18

Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial

revolutions, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this

generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to

be a part of it--we mean to lead it. For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon

and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag

of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace. We have vowed that we shall not see space

filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding.

Yet the vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we in this Nation are first, and, therefore, we

intend to be first. In short, our leadership in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and

security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve

these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world's leading space-

faring nation.

We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be

won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like

nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force

for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence

can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of

war. I do not say the we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any

more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be

explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man

has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours.

 Fermaint 19

There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile

to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful

cooperation many never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our

goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the

Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other

things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to

organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we

are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the

others, too.

It is for these reasons that I regard the decision last year to shift our efforts in space from low to

high gear as among the most important decisions that will be made during my incumbency in the

office of the Presidency.

In the last 24 hours we have seen facilities now being created for the greatest and most complex

exploration in man's history. We have felt the ground shake and the air shattered by the testing of

a Saturn C-1 booster rocket, many times as powerful as the Atlas which launched John Glenn,

generating power equivalent to 10,000 automobiles with their accelerators on the floor. We have

seen the site where the F-1 rocket engines, each one as powerful as all eight engines of the

Saturn combined, will be clustered together to make the advanced Saturn missile, assembled in a

new building to be built at Cape Canaveral as tall as a 48 story structure, as wide as a city block,

and as long as two lengths of this field.

 Fermaint 20

Within these last 19 months at least 45 satellites have circled the earth. Some 40 of them were

"made in the United States of America" and they were far more sophisticated and supplied far

more knowledge to the people of the world than those of the Soviet Union.

The Mariner spacecraft now on its way to Venus is the most intricate instrument in the history of

space science. The accuracy of that shot is comparable to firing a missile from Cape Canaveral

and dropping it in this stadium between the the 40-yard lines.

Transit satellites are helping our ships at sea to steer a safer course. Tiros satellites have given us

unprecedented warnings of hurricanes and storms, and will do the same for forest fires and

icebergs.

We have had our failures, but so have others, even if they do not admit them. And they may be

less public.

To be sure, we are behind, and will be behind for some time in manned flight. But we do not

intend to stay behind, and in this decade, we shall make up and move ahead.

The growth of our science and education will be enriched by new knowledge of our universe and

environment, by new techniques of learning and mapping and observation, by new tools and

computers for industry, medicine, the home as well as the school. Technical institutions, such as

Rice, will reap the harvest of these gains.

And finally, the space effort itself, while still in its infancy, has already created a great number of

new companies, and tens of thousands of new jobs. Space and related industries are generating

new demands in investment and skilled personnel, and this city and this State, and this region,

will share greatly in this growth. What was once the furthest outpost on the old frontier of the

West will be the furthest outpost on the new frontier of science and space. Houston, your City of

 Fermaint 21

Houston, with its Manned Spacecraft Center, will become the heart of a large scientific and

engineering community. During the next 5 years the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration expects to double the number of scientists and engineers in this area, to increase

its outlays for salaries and expenses to $60 million a year; to invest some $200 million in plant

and laboratory facilities; and to direct or contract for new space efforts over $1 billion from this

Center in this City.

To be sure, all this costs us all a good deal of money. This year¹s space budget is three times

what it was in January 1961, and it is greater than the space budget of the previous eight years

combined. That budget now stands at $5,400 million a year--a staggering sum, though somewhat

less than we pay for cigarettes and cigars every year. Space expenditures will soon rise some

more, from 40 cents per person per week to more than 50 cents a week for every man, woman

and child in the United Stated, for we have given this program a high national priority--even

though I realize that this is in some measure an act of faith and vision, for we do not now know

what benefits await us.

But if I were to say, my fellow citizens, that we shall send to the moon, 240,000 miles away from

the control station in Houston, a giant rocket more than 300 feet tall, the length of this football

field, made of new metal alloys, some of which have not yet been invented, capable of standing

heat and stresses several times more than have ever been experienced, fitted together with a

precision better than the finest watch, carrying all the equipment needed for propulsion,

guidance, control, communications, food and survival, on an untried mission, to an unknown

celestial body, and then return it safely to earth, re-entering the atmosphere at speeds of over

25,000 miles per hour, causing heat about half that of the temperature of the sun--almost as hot

 Fermaint 22

as it is here today--and do all this, and do it right, and do it first before this decade is out--then

we must be bold.

I'm the one who is doing all the work, so we just want you to stay cool for a minute. [laughter]

However, I think we're going to do it, and I think that we must pay what needs to be paid. I don't

think we ought to waste any money, but I think we ought to do the job. And this will be done in

the decade of the sixties. It may be done while some of you are still here at school at this college

and university. It will be done during the term of office of some of the people who sit here on

this platform. But it will be done. And it will be done before the end of this decade.

I am delighted that this university is playing a part in putting a man on the moon as part of a

great national effort of the United States of America.

Many years ago the great British explorer George Mallory, who was to die on Mount Everest,

was asked why did he want to climb it. He said, "Because it is there."

Well, space is there, and we're going to climb it, and the moon and the planets are there, and new

hopes for knowledge and peace are there. And, therefore, as we set sail we ask God's blessing on

the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked.

Thank you.