Build a rocket boys

How appropriate that I should be writing my Research Student Day presentation while Elbow's 'Lippy Kids' with its excellent refrain 'Build a rocket boys' fills the background with a bit of tuneful (prog) rock.

After several months of a fairly isolated student existence, I'm feeling a bit more part of the research community at the moment. I began to get a bit more momentum into the work as a deadline approached for my revised hypothesis/structure and literature review and I started playing my hypothesis past a few of the big players - the likes of Logsdon, Launius, Hansen and McCurdy and McDougall while asking for their views on what a Nixon presidency in 1961 might have looked like in terms of space policy.

My current working hypothesis (based on my growing realisation that I don't think there was a direct causal effect of the media on Executive decision making) states: More than 50 years on from President Kennedy’s inauguration, a myth persists that the USA’s triumph in landing a man on the moon expanded the nation’s frontiers into the heavens – and that this expansion owes its success to the policy-making of Kennedy. In recent years, this established wisdom has been reinforced by anniversary-driven hagiography, popular television rehash and, most of all, through the lionising of JFK.


This thesis will take an evidential approach in debunking the myth by presenting Kennedy as the master of political expediency, and re-evaluating Eisenhower’s role in developing effective space policy that was not limited by a race to the moon. The thesis will show how Eisenhower, from his inheritance of competing armed forces rocket programs, through the International Geophysical Year’s satellite development to his response to the Sputnik Autumn of 1957 set in track a process that enabled the creation of an agency that could deliver a space programme that, step-by-step, would open space in its widest sense to the American spirit of exploration. Using primary evidence from NASA’s Historical Collection and the Eisenhower Presidential Library, primary evidence from the Kennedy Presidential papers and recordings, and by extrapolating what a Nixon Presidency in 1961 might have meant for space policy, the thesis demonstrates that far from stretching America’s frontier to the heavens, Kennedy’s space policy was little more than an expedient reaction to the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the first earth orbit of Yuri Gagarin. Source material from both Eisenhower and Kennedy’s White House circles shows that Kennedy hijacked Eisenhower and NASA’s systematic and logical plan for space exploration, replacing it with a single-focus event: high on symbolic achievement, but entirely limiting in terms of truly extending America’s frontier into space.

The thesis will add to the discourse on the politics of the early years of space endeavour by making a first attempt to compare and contrast directly Eisenhower and Kennedy’s space policy decision making, highlighting Eisenhower’s low-key response to the Soviet ‘smoke and mirrors’; preference for unmanned space missions; and desire to separate scientific and military uses of space, with Kennedy’s direct challenge to Khrushchev which coalesced all NASA’s focus into the race for the moon. It also speculates on what might have been different had Nixon triumphed in the 1960 Presidential election.

In using space policy as the case study for Presidential decision making, this paper applies another contextual layer: the changing role of the media as the 1950s gave way to the 1960s and ushered in a new era of television news and debate; a new breed of space-enthralled journalist, and a new passion for all aspects of popular media: space as conquered by its ‘all American Boys’.

In summary, this paper re-evaluates Eisenhower’s contribution to the United States’ journey into space and, in so doing, places Kennedy’s mass-appeal rhetoric and policy making in true perspective: not as the champion of Apollo, but as the limiting factor that caused America to lose its way as it sought to push its frontier to the heavens.

None of the greats have knocked back my hypothesis and the general response has been positive. Now it sits with my supervisors for their comment - and it'll be open to the scrutiny of the Brunel research community on May 4 (may the fourth be with me!).

I've just been through a Saturday school where I had the chance to try out a shortened version of my presentation which drew precisely no questions.....probably not good - but the audience was made up of economists, organisational learning experts, educators and IT pros, with only one other historian in attendance. Still, I would have liked to elicit at least some reaction - but it was a long day and everyone was rather more concerned with their own presentation.

Anyway, it was just good to get together with other PhD students and have the kind of nerdy conversation that you just can't have at home - although why my kids aren't more interested in the US separation of government, I'll never know. 

Peer to Peer peering

Today was lecture five of 11 and the the Peer-reviewed session - though my 'Peer' was a tall, distinguished professor (as opposed to my short undistinguished self). For the second time in five weeks, my slides stuck - but I just busked through the first part of the session....and then got a student to crank the presentation on.

It helped that today's subject matter was the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan so I could talk without any great need for the slides anyway.

The students were alive, awake and chipped in usefully when asked - they're a good bunch - over 70 turned up today which, at week five on a wet windy afternoon seems pretty decent.

The immediate feedback was 'very good and no substantive criticism' - that made my day. Now it's on to NS-68 and the formation of NATO.

The demanding transition

Today I'll deliver my fourth lecture on American foreign policy - 1945-62. I'm a third of the way through the teaching and we're still on...1946.

Actually the first lecture covered 150 years' of the new Republic's flirtations with the rest of the world while weeks two and three covered the US entry to World War 2 through to Kennan's Long Telegram.

Now we're moving on to the serious stuff; the real Cold War if you like. Today's romp covers the Sinews of Peace speech; Byrnes statement of "firmness" in dealing with the communist 'threat' and the various flashpoints and potential flashpoints that put the US further on edge.

More than 90 students have signed up for the module - and more than 80 of them attended last week, despite no policy of compulsory lectures and seminars at Brunel.

it seems to be going well - but I've yet to receive any formal feedback...peer assessment is next week.

One year down, how many to go?

I've completed one academic year as a PhD student - and have been officially signed-off to continue into year two. As a part-timer, my target is to complete the PhD in five years, though secretly, I'd love to nail it inside four.

Yesterday was my Masters graduation - a nice morning in Uxbridge where, fittingly, Helen Sharman, Britain's first cosmonaut, received an honorary Doctorate for her services to science. She was based at Brunel before her trip to Mir, and I now have a research office in her old project building.....I wonder if she popped back for a nostalgic look round yesterday? The graduation marks a milestone for me: I can now firmly put the MA behind me and move forward much more deeply into the PhD research.

The high point of the first year of study was undoubtedly my visit to the US, both to NASA in Washington DC and perhaps more surprisingly, to Abilene in Kansas. I'd been working on the hypothesis that there was a direct formative effect of the media on US policy making at the beginning of the space race. But working through Eisenhower's presidential papers and the collections that surround these, it has become ever clearer that the process of presidential decision making was much more nuanced - though there were times when Ike's policy decisions really did appear to be made on the fly as he updated draft speeches and memos in the hours before meeting the NSC, briefing the press or meeting the leaders on the Hill.

So, I've moved my position somewhat. I'm still fascinated by the space race and the respective roles of the President, NASA, Congress and the media in shaping US policy. But my focus now is on the contrasts in presidential decision making between Eisenhower and Kennedy and the role the different strands of the media played in flavouring the audit trail towards decisions. I have about 1,000 pages of Eisenhower documents that I'm slowly working through, and am already thinking about a trip to Boston to put Kennedy's role in space policy under the same microscope.

Aside from getting my photographed documents into some kind of order, I'm still working through those papers and books that delve into my area of interest. I'm currently reading Harlen Makemson's 'Media, NASA and America's quest for the moon'. As to what I make of it? Well, for once I'm reading it professionally for a commissioned review piece for Spaceflight magazine. So for the moment, my thoughts remain my own.

Do we become PhDs in spite of the system or because of it?

I'm two months into my PhD, and now beginning to get some focus in what I'm doing. My research questions are beginning to solidify; I'm beginning to get around some of the best secondary sources, and have a better handle on the primary source people and material I'd like to explore.

I'm writing this from my shared research office at Brunel - where I'm sat on my own having popped in between work engagements this Friday lunchtime. The office is in portakabin building. it has four desks, four PCs, one phone, some lockers and a bookcase. It's basic, even spartan, but actually does the job. Six of us are assigned to this four-person space, but only three of us seem to use it with any regularity. So far, so good.

But, coming into this new venture with 20 years + work experience behind me, I'm finding there are a number of frustrations in the way that the School of Social Science is set up to 'welcome' and support PhD students.

For one thing, had I not asked about this office, I wouldn't have known of its existence. I've also had to ask about printing, about security and getting the room's access code changed (after some source material went missing from my desk) about access hours, pigeon holes and a plethora of other little details that I would have missed had i not been a bit nosy, a bit bolshie and perhaps more aware of what we should be getting than my younger or international colleagues.

What's apparent is that the School runs to the tune of the technicians - the academics are scared of them and the service ethic to students and staff alike is virtually non-existent. We have a byzantine printing process that means it costs far too much to print anything here - and the turnaround service is three days! They're also the masters of 'elf and safety' and managed to turn my missing personal papers into a fire risk issue - madness.

The other unexpected issue this term has been a Research Skills module that has taken up one evening each week so far. In theory it is a really good idea, and in practice has brought together an esoteric blend of researchers who have probably gained most from the informal networking that goes on outside the class. We range from Economics & Finance through Anthropology, Social communications and Psychology to Politics and History. As a historian, I feel like an outrider, cut away from the school's mainstream. however, I've really felt for the course leader, a really nice guy who has struggled to meet out wide-ranging and very varied needs. Frankly, the module has failed to satisfy anyone.

Inside, we've had a few half-hearted lectures on time management, poster conferences, critical analysis and quantitative techniques, but each MRes and PhD class member has also had to present their own research - or planned research in most cases. A few have been great - interesting topics well presented. But the majority have been droning voices, reading slides crammed with far too much information. The quality of presentation has been poor, and the tutor has done little to stop speakers droning on and on to the point of half the class walking out.

Anyway, next week sees the final class - an internal Poster Conference. I'm quite looking forward to it - but am also looking forward to parking the taught element and getting on with my research proper.

The best thing to come out of the last eight weeks? Meeting and making friends with some of my fellow PhD researchers - they're a really nice and scarily bright bunch. There'll be no slacking here if i even hope to keep up.

I'm still swallowing books whole by the way - the latest being Michael Allen's 'Live From the Moon' - not the best academic history book I've read, but an accessible narrative of the Cold War Sputnik-Apollo space programmes. I was worried at first that it would fill the space where my research sits. But it's complementary, and I'll certainly use elements of it.

A Distinct improvement

I haven't blogged much recently as I've been trying to get my head round the step up from MA to PhD level - I have some thoughts on that, but will share them later.

However, yesterday was a pretty momentous day. It was my daughter's 16th birthday, a busy working day and I was also sending Thanksgiving greetings to a number of American friends and colleagues. I'd forgotten that my MA result was due, and only realised when I got an email from my course administrator advising me to look at Brunel's online student portal.

I logged on and found out I'd got my MA - with Distinction. It's the highest award and was actually far better than I steeled myself to expect. I must say that I shouted out loud and punched the air, and was buzzing through my later meetings and my evening research seminar at Brunel.

My supervisor brought me back to earth: 'a distinction at MA is worth nothing to the PhD assessors', he said. 'No time to rest on your laurels,' added my research office roomie.

Today, a bottle of champagne later, my head's thumping a bit. But my grin's still wide.

Day by day it's becoming more real

So I'm now officially a PhD research student and those carefree days of slaving over a Masters dissertation are nought but a memory. Still, I'm not exactly progressing the new research at a rate of knots.

The first few weeks have been all about making the transition from taught student to research student. I now have a shared office at Brunel with a desk, bookshelves and a quarter share in a phone. I've just been on a two-day Early Stage Research Module, and have given my first presentation on my work to fellow PhD students as part of a research skills module that's compulsory for newbies like me.

That was quite an experience: I was the only historian in the room, faced by economists, political scientists, psychologists and a scary number of social anthropologists. I'm not sure they 'get' my research any more than I get what they're up to. Still, it was a fun half-hour.

I've had a meeting with my secondary supervisor but not my main one: I think we're avoiding each other until he has finished marking my Masters disso. Until then, I'm scoping and trying to build a network of researchers interested in the conjunction of the media and the space race since this year's planned work builds directly on what I started with the Masters. Already I feel that I only scratched the surface with that piece - but I have no indication yet whether it was a good or bad scratch. Certainly every day since the disso went in I've uncovered something new. I'm kicking myself that so many things didn't make the final draft, and feeling that I got too hung up on the superficial. Anyway, time will tell.

It's done

All 57 pages, 16,214 words plus abstract and bibliography....

Time for a read-through this weekend, just to make sure, printing on Monday and then delivery to Brunel on Tuesday. It's definitely a weight off my shoulders. And I get all of a week's break before it's PhD induction day!