historian roger launius talks about the apollo space program and describes how the cold war influenced the first missions and the excitement of the moon landing in 1969. he also explores apollo's legacy and speculates on the future of space travel. we recorded this 15 minute interview at the annual american historical association meeting in chicago. . launius, as a space historian and former chief historian for nasa, let's talk about the apollo program. let's begin at the 1950's. that was the starting point, explain. >> it is hard to get a grip on it for those who didn't live through it. this cold war rivalry between the u.s. and the soviet union was incredibly intense and one of those areas of competition was in the space. going toechnology was

win the war, and in that context, who had the best a lien on the other side. was the demonstrator of that technology. so all through the 1950's, americans and soviets are competing in a whole variety of arenas. but one of them is rockets, ballistic missiles, space flight for peaceful purposes, and ultimately, human spaceflight. host: what did the soviets have that we did not. roger: they had a big rocket. the irony in the context of that big rocket, they built it as a ballistic missiles so they could send in nuclear war had to the united states and blow us up. we were planning to do the same to them, but we had the capability to miniaturize our weapons. quite that same capability, so they had to build a bigger booster which enabled them to launch payloads into space in orbit before we could

do so. host: why do they call it the sputnik program? roger:? roger: it wasn't really called that per se, that was a name khrushchevally by after they launched the first satellite. had an alphanumeric system they used for designating these things until they were launched. the americans did the same thing. they would name them as they publicly described what they were doing. the famous satellite that went into space on the 1957, wasoctober of really something they came up with after the fact. it made such a big splash. initially, the russians didn't make much out of it, but when such ade -- when it made big splash, they played it for all the top again novelli and had. host: how was it living at that time? roger: i had no firsthand knowledge of sputnik.

have studied and a lot, have a pretty clear understanding of what reactions were. everybody recognized. a new age had begun. we usually think of sputnik as, oh my gosh, we are so far behind the russians. that did happen, but not for a few weeks. the majority of americans were very interested in what was taking place. they talked about how this was a great accomplishment regardless of who did it, it was a step forward by humans, not just by russians or americans, or whoever else. the result of that was that it took a while and sputnik was argued by american political leaders on the democratic side, because eisenhower was president, as something that the republicans had gotten behind the russians on this, and they up.ed to catch

and they used every opportunity to embarrass the other political side over this issue. during the time parent, especially 1956-1960, how much pressure was president under?wer roger: there was pressure on a variety of fronts, but in terms of space, he didn't feel much at all, until the sputnik 1 launched in the fall of 1957. the reality was that he had money onair amount of space activities, done in the context of building missiles and rockets, a technology that had a variety of uses, to kill people and break things, but you could also use it to launch satellites into orbit, and ultimately, people. they spent a lot of money on reconnaissance satellites. the americans launched their first by satellite internet to 50 that was able to take -- their first spy satellite to spy

over the soviet union. the idea was that they did not event. have another many people knew much about it. it created a good bedrock to build the public aspect of the program, but it took a while to move in the direction. host: early in this term, john kennedy famously saying, we will put a man on the moon before the end of the decade and return him safely -- was nasa, was the country realistically ready for that? roger: nobody was prepared for the moon. if you talk to nasa, their response was, oh my god, we have to actually do this. they had the building blocks in space and new that with enough time and energy, and money, they could be successful. objectives, if they said

that they were going to do something and then walked away, it probably wouldn't have happened. was they did have in kennedy was an individual who said, we are going to make this happen, then he sustained it with budgets throughout the rest of his administration. and johnson, who became president upon kennedy's assassination, was totally committed. he had been a champion since the 1950's. host: so how did we get there? roger: [laughter] it was a lot of work. the budget rose from $300 million in 1960, to $5.2 billion in 1965, and that seemed to be what took us to the moon. it started to go down after that. that was the building of infrastructure like the kennedy space center in florida, the launch complexes, the buildings, all the things we see today, that was a result of the apollo

buildup. they have been modified over time, but they are still in use. the other thing they did was invest in technology, especially the rocket technology, the saturn 5, to get to the moon. spacecraft, the astronauts, the spacesuits they wore, on spacewalks and so on and so forth, that was the result of developments in the first half of the 1960's. host: why the moon? why was that the objective? roger: the moon is the most romantic as anyone can imagine. to read history, we have always assigned it special significance. it seems romantic, i love you so much owed give you the moon, those kinds of things. it was theportant, closest target. no place else is accessible in the same way. that wasound a target

hard to get through and the soviets could not do it immediately. and they found a target that was reasonable. they were going to be would get to mars, for instance, that was too far, but the moon was perfect. host: and, of course, this year's marking the 50th anniversary of the first moon landing and the walk on them armstrong. in the 1970's, where was the apollo program? what were its objectives? roger: after the first landing, they began to extend the missions and make them longer and more scientifically focused. apolloronauts on 11 deployed experiments, collected rock samples, things like that, but that was simple in comparison to, especially the last three missions. apollo 15, 16 and 17, where they had a rover that allowed them to go as far as 20 miles away from the landing site and deploy all kinds of scientific satellites,

--ch are still operating scientific experiments which are still operating, and also collect a wide variety of samples for study. that was a real bonanza, in terms of the activities that were good for the scientists. we learned a great deal from the process. but that didn't have the kind of public resonance those early flights did. we tend to get bored after the first few times you do something se, and that of pas happened with apollo. steve: we have done a number of programs of the apollo. what struck me is that the smartphones we carry around have more technology than what apollo and nasa had in the 1960's, which is really remarkable. roger: it is. they had good technology, and they pushed that technology pretty significantly. but they didn't have will give got today. revolutionectronics

in the 1970's made it possible for us to carry around many-computers and are pocket like we do today, talk on them and all caps of things. --mini computers. the interesting thing about apollo -- nasa likes to talk about spinoffs, everyday products are the result of investment in the space program, and there are some of those, but a lot of it is in direct. -- indirect. they assembled a number of computer specialists to push the landinggy for the computer that was used on the apollo spacecraft. lab atrked at the draper m.i.t., they did their work and built a very small, very robust computer for its time, but it was very simplistic by our standards. at the end of the program, those people dispersed. they took with him for knowledge they had gained, and they are

rolodex. heir rolodex. y were in the electronic industry, everywhere. that indirect investment in microelectronics that came with these guys moving on to other jobs, was really an important thing for apollo. steve: would you say that was its biggest legacy? roger: not necessarily. their biggest legacy was bringing their scientific knowledge to understand how the system has evolved, and that was important. from a practical perspective, , i micro electronics seeding think, was important. steve: what was this so interesting to you? roger: spaceflight was

interesting and exciting. it is a history that is replete with heroes, in some cases with villains, with rivalries, with races and a success, and failures, i can think of a better topic. steve: should we go back to the moon? roger: it would be great to the back to the moon, and i think ultimately we will. we are already doing it with robots. we will be doing it with humans at some point in the indefinite future. by the biggest problem we have with the moon, and it is not going back, it is we did not find anything there that we wanted. to rest your exploration, that as always been built upon series of -- terrestrial exploration has always been built upon a series of objectives, we went to the one for geopolitical purposes, but it boils down to her, if you find something of value that you want, that is commercially useful, that is when you keep

going. and we haven't found that on the moon, at least not yet. it might be there, we just don't know. steve: so based on the history of nassau, the apollo program, looking ahead, especially with other enterprise, what is the future? roger: i think we will see a lot of activities in space, but arts of it is a comfortable place for lots of activities to happen. -- earth'suld happen orbit is a comfortable place full of activities to happen. in fact, one of the things apollo did and the orbital flights but proceeded it, especially the shuttle madewards, it was -- it orbital activities no longer a frontier. weis not something unknown, know what is there and people

are starting to use it for all kinds of purposes. that is really where the companies are in this story as well. unless there's a profit motive, we're not going to see commercial entities going to space, they have to have some return on investment. there may be individual billionaires who are willing to , but they areey not willing to spend everything to achieve this. and we start talking about multiples of billions. you can go through a fortune in a hurry. that, i think, will remain the province of nationstates, may be doing it cooperatively. steve: when you look at the key players of the program, you mentioned presidents and others, but who else? ?ho are unsung heroes roger: there are many who are

unknown to integrate outside nasa. , a person is bob veteran of aerospace activities by the time of the apollo program, but he becomes the lead and what becomes of the johnson space center, where human spaceflight activities took place. he suffered at that effort on the way through the apollo program and finally retired in early 1970's. i don't think his name is well known, but it certainly should been. tove: what is her message fellow historians in chicago? roger: there is a lot of things to be done in the history of spaceflight. there is an interesting area of exploration and it turns to larger concerns we have in a variety of areas, economically, politically, socially, culturally, and we have only begun to scratch the surface. steve: roger launius, we thank you for your time. roger: thank you.

announcer: you are watching american history tv, 40 eight hours of programming on american history every weekend on c-span3. follow us on twitter @ c-spanhistory to keep up with the latest history news. ♪ crawled byays and the senate chambers. what if they could speak? what would they tell us? >> c-span's newest book, "the senate" transfers you inside the senate wing of the capitol, revealing its ornate hallways, private workspaces and elaborate historic meeting rooms. the keepsake is filled with beautiful color photos of the art and architecture that pervade the senate space, and offers information about the senate rich history. to order your high-quality copy of "the senate" for just

$18.95, visit c-span.org/senatebook." sunday on american artifacts, we learned the story of the oldest synagogue in washington, d.c. through a tour of the interior and interviews about the process of moving the building 800 feet to the incorporated into a new capital jewish museum. here's a preview. >> i am the executive director of the new capital jewish museum. we are getting ready to move our historic synagogue down 3rd street to the site of the new museum. this building was built in 1876, originally over at sixth and g streets. this is the third time it has been moved. in 1969, it was first picked up off its foundation and they actually took off some of the first floor. the have made it easier for us

this time around to move it to the new museum site. as you can see, they have lifted it up on some steel beams and put wheels underneath the steel beams and used remote control system to roll it down the street, very slowly. it will take a few hours just to get it one block down. we are getting set up today for a big celebration. museum capital jewish earmuffs for our guests, cap which aliens -- cappuccinos for our italian next-door neighbors, it is what he for a big celebration. ♪ -- just getting ready for a big celebration. ♪

>> my name is wendy, deputy director of the capital jewish museum. we have not yet built our museum, so we are in the home of cas,a it, a place to come and get warmaliana, and also look at the collection -- we are at the home of our neighbors, and italian restaurant. it is difficult to pack everything up and bring everything here on a daily basis, we have a lot of things to share, so we will be in the tell much bigger stories in a way that will be able to engage people in understanding the past and also the future. >> you can watch the entire program about the oldest synagogue in washington dc on "american artifacts" sunday at

6:00 p.m. and 10:00 eastern. this is american history tv, where each weekend for 48 hours we explore our nation's past. vassar college professor rebecca edwards teaches a class about the differences between 19th century political parties and their views on gender roles, racial equality, and family dynamics. she describes the transition from a patriarchal family unit before the civil war to a reconstruction era ideal of a nuclear family comprised of a husband as breadwinner and a wife in charge of the domestic sphere. her class is about one hour and 10 minutes. prof. edwards: welcome, everybody.