What if NASA HQ went to Hampton Roads/Norfolk instead of Houston?

So, I got to do the headline story for the Virginia Gazette and Daily Press for the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11 landing on the moon... and I came upon a DOOZIE of a what if a lot of folks have been overlooking about early NASA history.

Specifically, a lot of folks I spoke with talked about how prior to LBJ sticking his thumb on the scale for Houston, NASA was largely run out of Langley in Virginia - and both due to the thriving local aerospace industry and the region's proximity to DC, there was a lot of thought that NASA's presence in the region would only grow larger.

Hell, one of the people I interviewed, who worked for NASA at the time, literally said "Were it not for LBJ, Hampton Roads, not Houston, would have been Space City." Even said Nixon winning in 60 would have done that!

So how's THAT for an interesting little US History chestnut - all those jobs and billions of dollars that, instead of going to Houston, Texas, eventually helping it grow to be the fourth-largest city in America, go to Hampton Roads, Virginia.

Think of the impact that could have had on the development of both Texas and Virginia!
 
“Norfolk, we’ve had a problem” doesn’t have the same ring to it.

"Did they just say 'fuck' on the radio. Quick, bleep it!"

"[ bleeeeeeep ] velocity vector, over?"
"Say again, Apollo?"
"[ bleeeeeep ] reading?"
"Apollo, stand by, we seem to be having comms trouble."
"[ bleeeeeeeep ] getting bleeped."
 
Either Langley Research Center (maybe having the Air Force turn the Air Force base over to NASA) or Goddard Space Flight Center just outside Washington would have been very reasonable choices. And it would have probably been 'Langley We have a problem' or Goddard we have a problem'
 
@thekingsguard

IMO, the following broad impacts for Norfolk and Houston.

Houston:
  • Clear Lake would be less developed Houston's expansion would be more even more pronounced to the west and north due to the Oil & Gas Industry.
  • Houston would feel the economic impact of the implosion of the Oil & Gas Industry in the 1980's even more than it was and it was devastating.
  • Houston would lose tourism, but then after 9/11 access to NASA has been curtailed which has curtailed in current tourism impact of NASA in the OTL regardless.
  • No Houston Astros or Astrodome.
Norfolk:
  • The aerospace industry in Virginia would become even more of a jugernaught and potentially even further muddy the lines between the Defense Industry and the civilian orientation of NASA.
  • Wallops Island potentially become more important with Norfolk being the official location of Mission Control and Training of NASA, but the defacto location would be Wallops Island.
  • Norfolk would become even more crowded and the highways even less manageable.
  • Possibly funding for NASA would be at risk after the Apollo program simply because the majority of NASA primary locations would be east coast oriented and therebye risking the ire of western Representatives and Sentaors.
 
I wonder if there might not still be SOME NASA center in Texas... just that NASA Langley gets mission control and HQ, and the billions of dollars and thousands of jobs that come with it.

NASA was a driving force behind making Houston the fourth largest city in America... how much of that growth now go to Virginia? Hell, is it enough that all those proposals to merge Norfolk/Hampton Roads/Virginia Beach in OTL actually go through? How much of that growth effects the rest of the state?

Hell, maybe ITTL, we see OTL's complaints about Northern Virginia, for a time, replaced by complaints about the Tidewater region.
 
Specifically, a lot of folks I spoke with talked about how prior to LBJ sticking his thumb on the scale for Houston, NASA was largely run out of Langley in Virginia
This is true.

Hell, one of the people I interviewed, who worked for NASA at the time, literally said "Were it not for LBJ, Hampton Roads, not Houston, would have been Space City." Even said Nixon winning in 60 would have done that!
This is not.

The problem is the assumption that NASA was planning on continuing to expand Langley's role in the spaceflight business, which they were not. In the official NASA history of Johnson, you'll find that there's an entire chapter--chapter three--dedicated to the decision to build a new center for managing the human spaceflight program, separate from Langley (where it was located) and Goddard (which managed it, after it was created). Essentially, they had already decided by the time of the election in 1960 that the Space Task Group (i.e., the human spaceflight program) needed to be located at a new center dedicated entirely to human spaceflight in order to allow direct oversight of the program by NASA Headquarters and ensure that the program (which they correctly foresaw was likely to expand significantly in the near future) would not drown out the other programs run by Langley and Goddard.

So there was essentially no possibility of having the STG remain in Virginia short of maybe not having a human spaceflight program at all, or at least not one that progresses past Mercury. This is where Houston starts to enter the picture, but not for any reason much related to LBJ; instead, interest in Houston had more to do with it being the home district of Albert Thomas, at that time the chair of the House Appropriations Committee and therefore a very important figure for NASA, of course. Now, Thomas did have links with Johnson, but these were, in this case, not particularly direct, and overall the picture that emerges is Houston receiving a leg up in a similar vein to the way Huntsville does nowadays owing to its representation by Richard Shelby.

In any case, when NASA started the requisite site search they were inundated with applications from all over the country, not just Houston. In fact, there was particularly heavy lobbying from Massachusetts for a site there (including direct inquiries from the President!), with Houston just being one out of a number of sites that were considered. It was always considered a strong site due to the good weather (for flight operations), ease of access by barge, and proximate industrial areas due to the oil industry, but a number of other sites in Florida, Louisiana, and California were also considered strong contenders and had political support from important politicians in those states. When the chips were down, actually, MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa was considered the strongest site and everything was ready to go...but using MacDill was predicated on the Strategic Air Command shutting it down, and at the last moment they decided to keep using it after all. With Tampa out of the way, the former number two site--Houston, of course--was now suddenly number one, and the rest is history.

So if Nixon is elected, Johnson...quite possibly still goes to Houston, since the important political factor of Albert Thomas is still in place most likely, MacDill still probably isn't closed, and Houston still has a good chance of being number two in the site selection. At most, you'd see it going to California instead--after all, now the President is from California, and Nixon definitely had a head for how the space program could be leveraged for political support. And the number three site, along with quite a few other proposed sites, was in California--San Francisco, actually--so it wouldn't be totally out of the question for that to be jiggered around.

Overall, though, there just isn't any real evidence in favor of the theory that LBJ steered Johnson to Houston. It's a nice and plausible-sounding story, but it ignores how the process actually played out or the fact that there were many other more important political figures in Texas who were working towards the goal of getting Johnson there.
 
^^^
Interesting. How would have Marshall/Redstone in Huntsville, Alabama played into the mix without Houston as a player?
 
^^^
Interesting. How would have Marshall/Redstone in Huntsville, Alabama played into the mix without Houston as a player?

Similar as described for Goddard & Langley. Its laid onto a site that already has large important programs in place & its difficult to keep them separate when using the same location. But, if it were chosen it certainly pulls a lot more dammed Yankees into formerly small town Alabama.
 
Similar as described for Goddard & Langley. Its laid onto a site that already has large important programs in place & its difficult to keep them separate when using the same location. But, if it were chosen it certainly pulls a lot more dammed Yankees into formerly small town Alabama.

Interestingly, there was a story n NPR's Morning Edition today about the difficult time NASA had attracting talent to Huntsville in OTL due to the issues of segregation. Link to story here: http://ww.npr.org/2019/07/22/744023...ram-grew-alabama-was-pressured-to-desegregate
 
It was more about Rep. Albert Thomas who was from Houston and was the Chairman of the key House Appropriation sub-committee that funded the Manned Space Center.
There was a story about the Director of NASA giving a technical briefing to President Kennedy about why Houston was chosen when Kennedy interrupted him and asked about how Rep. Thomas was doing.
 
This is true.


This is not.

The problem is the assumption that NASA was planning on continuing to expand Langley's role in the spaceflight business, which they were not. In the official NASA history of Johnson, you'll find that there's an entire chapter--chapter three--dedicated to the decision to build a new center for managing the human spaceflight program, separate from Langley (where it was located) and Goddard (which managed it, after it was created). Essentially, they had already decided by the time of the election in 1960 that the Space Task Group (i.e., the human spaceflight program) needed to be located at a new center dedicated entirely to human spaceflight in order to allow direct oversight of the program by NASA Headquarters and ensure that the program (which they correctly foresaw was likely to expand significantly in the near future) would not drown out the other programs run by Langley and Goddard.

So there was essentially no possibility of having the STG remain in Virginia short of maybe not having a human spaceflight program at all, or at least not one that progresses past Mercury. This is where Houston starts to enter the picture, but not for any reason much related to LBJ; instead, interest in Houston had more to do with it being the home district of Albert Thomas, at that time the chair of the House Appropriations Committee and therefore a very important figure for NASA, of course. Now, Thomas did have links with Johnson, but these were, in this case, not particularly direct, and overall the picture that emerges is Houston receiving a leg up in a similar vein to the way Huntsville does nowadays owing to its representation by Richard Shelby.

In any case, when NASA started the requisite site search they were inundated with applications from all over the country, not just Houston. In fact, there was particularly heavy lobbying from Massachusetts for a site there (including direct inquiries from the President!), with Houston just being one out of a number of sites that were considered. It was always considered a strong site due to the good weather (for flight operations), ease of access by barge, and proximate industrial areas due to the oil industry, but a number of other sites in Florida, Louisiana, and California were also considered strong contenders and had political support from important politicians in those states. When the chips were down, actually, MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa was considered the strongest site and everything was ready to go...but using MacDill was predicated on the Strategic Air Command shutting it down, and at the last moment they decided to keep using it after all. With Tampa out of the way, the former number two site--Houston, of course--was now suddenly number one, and the rest is history.

So if Nixon is elected, Johnson...quite possibly still goes to Houston, since the important political factor of Albert Thomas is still in place most likely, MacDill still probably isn't closed, and Houston still has a good chance of being number two in the site selection. At most, you'd see it going to California instead--after all, now the President is from California, and Nixon definitely had a head for how the space program could be leveraged for political support. And the number three site, along with quite a few other proposed sites, was in California--San Francisco, actually--so it wouldn't be totally out of the question for that to be jiggered around.

Overall, though, there just isn't any real evidence in favor of the theory that LBJ steered Johnson to Houston. It's a nice and plausible-sounding story, but it ignores how the process actually played out or the fact that there were many other more important political figures in Texas who were working towards the goal of getting Johnson there.

That's one of those odd things I dug up speaking to folks in Virginia at the time, and with NASA - including the recently passed Christopher Kraft - who say that the move to Houston caught everyone a bit flatfooted. Mainly, that while the choice to build a Manned Space Center to replace Goddard and Langley was known, the thoughts of a lot the folks working in NASA at the time was they'd select a site in the Norfolk/Hampton Roads/Virginia Beach region, for the same reasons Langley had been selected as a NASA base originally - proximity to the DC Beltway, massive existing presence of the aerospace industry locally, regional experience with op-security, and it was near one of the launch sites with Wallops Island, albeit one limited to satellite launches.

One of the men I spoke with, who was a Williamsburg City Councilman at the time, even showed me a letter from then-Vice President Nixon promising that NASA's eventual HQ would remain in the region. Granted, who knows how much Nixon's word is worth, but a promise was made nonetheless.

Part of the reason this is so exciting for me is that there isn't a whole lot on this possibility - a few footnotes on some NASA websites - but when speaking to some primary sources that were there at the time, as well as some local records and newspaper archives - there's something very meaty there about a possible NASA HQ in the Seven Cities region, and there was certainly a LOT of local bitterness about Langley getting snubbed for Apollo. I even mention in my article that the local newspapers at the time had limited any coverage of Apollo 11 strictly to congratulating a few locals who had worked on the project. The only mention of Neil Armstrong the entire month of July 1969 in the Virginia Gazette was from a hotel advertisement, and in the Daily Press was a blurb mentioning that he and the crew had landed safely on Earth on July 24.

I'm definitely going to investigate more into this locally in my free time, but there are at least some early promises and a LOT of locals who operated under the assumption that mission control would be somewhere in the Hampton Roads region. Plus, it's not like the idea is impossible - the great thing about the OTL Manned Space Center is that there's nothing done there where the location is critical, and we're talking about a region that has enough space and industry to house, built, supply, repair and support four of the USA's 11 Carrier Battlegroups, so there's a decent foundation for expanding that to the space program.

So, let's assume they're right, but that as you point out, there are still some pressures to put SOMETHING in Houston, even if they don't get mission control. Houston still gets one of the "Primary 10" NASA centers... not nearly as important as landing Mission Control/HQ was, but better than nothing, and maybe they peel away some of what went to the others to beef up thiers.

How much of that growth that in OTL we saw go to Houston in OTL instead goes toward Hampton/Norfolk? Bare minimum, we're talking about tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in the longterm, enough to have an impact on ANY city.

I think it's easily enough to prevent the worst of the 70s decline that hit the Tidewater region pretty badly in OTL... I wonder if it's enough to see some of the various proposed mergers of Hampton/Newport News/Norfolk/Virginia Beach that popped up every few years from the 60s to the early 2000s actually succeed. The fact all of them are separate has always hurt the region in terms of attracting business, and there would be a LOT of money to go around with NASA located in the region... what would the eventual name of a merged city even be? Case in point, merge them together today in OTL, and its the 5th largest city in America, ironically, behind Houston.

I wonder if it would be enough that the region finally gets a professional sports team. Norfolk Astros anybody?

Similarly, of all the various businesses that in OTL went to Houston, I think a lot of them still might... even without NASA, there's too much oil money in Houston for there NOT to be some trickledown, especially since most of the OTL Fortune 500 companies based out of Houston are still energy/oil companies. The one change: big tech. Texas had some native grown stuff, but it was largely centered on Dallas and Austin before NASA came to Houston. All those early tech jobs go to Norfolk, and all the trickle-down jobs with them...
 
Top