Musings on Charles A. Lindbergh on the 83rd Anniversary of the Transatlantic Flight

May 20-21, 2010, marked the 83rd anniversary of Charles A. Lindbergh’s historic solo, nonstop flight from New York to Paris. As a result of this feat, Lindbergh became an instant hero and celebrity. But how do we explain the overpowering public reaction to what some thought was a stunt? In his essay titled, “The Meaning of Lindbergh’s Flight,” published in 1960, historian John William Ward theorized that Lindbergh enabled Americans to look both forward to the technological future, which they feared and misunderstood, and backward to their pioneering past. A more cynical interpretation is that while Lindbergh’s flight was a truly courageous act, he became famous for being famous. Also, we know that his advisors crafted a tightly-managed persona and created a squeaky-clean, idealized public image of him. There is perhaps more than a grain of truth in each analysis.

Lindberch

Charles Lindbergh poses inside the door of the Spirit of St. Louis.

 

Whatever the reasons, Lindbergh eventually lost favor with the American public. In March 1932, in what was called “The Crime of the Century,” Lindbergh’s first-born son, Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr., was kidnapped and murdered. The resulting trial and conviction and the publicity that surrounded them were sensational, controversial, and ugly. In December 1935, largely as a result of the aftermath of the kidnapping, Lindbergh and his wife Anne fled the country for England, saying that “the English have greater regard for law and order in their own land than the people of any other nation in the world.” In October 1938, during a trip to Germany, Lindbergh accepted from Hermann Goering the Service Cross of the German Eagle, a high honor. For this he was roundly criticized. On his return to the United States in April 1939, Lindbergh began making speeches in favor of American neutrality in the European war. In April 1941, he made his opposition to American intervention official when he joined the America First Committee and became its chief spokesman. As a result of his activities in behalf of America First, Lindbergh lost his commission in the U.S. Army Air Corps and became a considerable security risk in the eyes of the Roosevelt administration.

After America’s entry into the war, Lindbergh offered his services to the Army Air Corps but was refused. He was eventually hired by United Aircraft Corporation and served as a technical representative in the Pacific Theater and unofficially as a fighter pilot. After the war, his reputation was rehabilitated when President Eisenhower restored his military commission in 1954. During this time Lindbergh rejected his previous belief that aviation would lead to a better world, and he turned his attention to nature, conservation and the environment. He died in 1974.

The controversy that surrounded Lindbergh has not entirely disappeared. In 2004 American novelist Philip Roth published The Plot Against America, which theorizes counterfactually a situation in which Lindbergh, backed by radical Republicans, defeats Roosevelt in 1940, and is elected president. Lindbergh subsequently signs a non-aggression pact with Hitler and the U.S. embarks on its own program of institutionalized anti-Semitism. In 2005, German author Rudolf Schroeck published a book titled Das Doppelleben des Charles A. Lindbergh (The Double Life of Charles A. Lindbergh), which revealed that between 1957 and 1974 Lindbergh had affairs with three European women and fathered seven children among them. Reeve Lindbergh, Lindbergh’s youngest daughter, in her book Forward From Here: Leaving Middle Age—And Other Unexpected Adventures (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2009) attempts to come to grips with a father “whose very presence alternately crowded and startled everyone” and with the fact of Lindbergh’s secret families, whose existence she has acknowledged and with whom she visited.

In 2007 David M. Friedman, published The Immortalists: Charles Lindbergh, Dr. Alexis Carrel, and their Daring Quest to Live Forever (New York: Ecco, 2007), a disturbing look at the eugenic underpinnings of Lindbergh’s perfusion pump experiments with Carrel. In a Spring 2009 article in Air Power History, titled “The Celebrity of Charles Lindbergh,” historian Stanley Shapiro charges that Lindbergh’s behavior in matters of the kidnapping of his son, marriage power relations, and the acceptance of the Nazi medal display a familiar pattern of “remote and affectless response to criticism and disagreement, a growing insistence upon the rectitude of his actions, together with a grim resoluteness and rigid perseverance.” And in a forthcoming book by historian Thomas Kessner titled The Flight of the Century: Charles Lindbergh and the Rise of  American Aviation, Pivotal Moments in American History Series (New York: Oxford UP, 2010), the author concedes Lindbergh’s importance to the emerging aviation industry in the U.S., but charges that while Lindbergh “moved serially through aviation, science, race, the environment” … he failed to confront the core issue: it was not that technology could facilitate evil, but rather that unless human society made commensurate progress in civility, humanity, and decency, all the advances of modern life in technology, medicine, and communication could offer no assurances of real progress.”

Perhaps most interesting in the recent reappraisal of Lindbergh is the rediscovery of Lindbergh’s relationship to his father politically and philosophically. In Real Enemies: Conspiracy Theories and American Democracy, World War I to 9/11 (New York: Oxford UP, 2009) historian Kathyrn S. Olmsted reveals that plates to the elder Lindbergh’s book Why Your Country Is at War and What Happens to You After the War were destroyed by federal agents in 1918. In his run for governor of Minnesota that same year, the senior Lindbergh was vilified by his opponents for his supposedly unpatriotic political views, and he and his supporters were repeatedly terrorized. These facts shed important light on the younger Lindbergh’s influences and beliefs.

No one can deny Lindbergh’s lifelong and significant contributions to aviation. Nevertheless, the public discovered early on that the celebrated hero had feet of clay. In the interwar years, criticism of Lindbergh on numerous accounts, particularly his relationship with the press, was subdued until he began to speak out against the war. What must be the most shocking development of recent years is the discovery of Lindbergh’s secret families—a reality that is far from his carefully cultivated, almost asexual persona, and which forces us to reassess the man’s character. Moreover, one has to wonder if Lindbergh came on the scene in the 21st century, a period of extreme cynicism and celebrity bashing, with a feat that distinguished him as heroic and celebrated, would he receive the same unquestioned adulation as he did in 1927.

Dominick A. Pisano is a curator in the Aeronautics Division of the National Air and Space Museum

Sending a Nobel Prize to Orbit

Nobel Prize

Replica of John Mather's Nobel Prize for Physics

The notation in the Museum’s artifact database is simple: “On loan.”  But this artifact is a replica Nobel Prize.  And its loan involves two government agencies, a crushed storage building, and a flight to the International Space Station.

Let’s start at the beginning – literally.  As in the Big Bang.  In 2006, John Mather of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics jointly with George F. Smoot of the University of California at Berkeley “for their discovery of the blackbody form and anisotropy of the cosmic background radiation.”  That is, using the COBE (COsmic Background Explorer) satellite, Mather and Smoot discovered “the basic form of the cosmic microwave background radiation as well as its small variations”—work that confirms the theory of the Big Bang.  The National Air and Space Museum displays a replica of the COBE satellite in the “Explore the Universe” exhibit in the National Mall Building.

COBE

Close up of front end of COBE showing entrances for FIRAS (left) and DIRBE (right.)

The Nobel Prize, a series of yearly international awards endowed by Swedish industrialist and inventor Alfred Nobel, consists of a monetary prize, a diploma, and a gold medal.  But Laureates have the opportunity to have bronze replica medals minted for their private use.  Mather requested three.

And thus, the Museum received into its collection a Nobel Prize medal.  On October 3, 2007, during a reception and invited talk sponsored by NASA at the National Air and Space Museum, Mather presented Museum director General Jack Dailey with a bronze replica of the award’s medal.  Mather gave another copy to NASA.

In 2010, NASA astronaut Piers Sellers contacted Mather about flying a copy of his Nobel Prize aboard STS-132, a mission aboard the Space Shuttle Atlantis, destined for the International Space Station in May.  Astronauts often collaborate to assemble the significant objects that fly aboard each space mission.  Mather was delighted.  But, he quickly discovered that the medals he had given to NASA had been encased in thick plastic for display.  Removing the coating risked damaging the medals.  Flying the coated medals risked off-gassing (that smell that almost all plastics emit), which could be harmful in a spacecraft’s sealed environment.  Only the Museum’s medal remained in its original state.  So Mather contacted the Museum.

The timing stunk.  Just the week prior was the historic early February snow storm that paralyzed Washington, DC for a full week.  The heavy snow damaged a critical storage and processing building at the Paul E. Garber facility in Suitland, Maryland.  Every object that came in or out of the Museum usually passed through that building.  The entire loan program was shut down, frozen, blocked.  The staff was working overtime in rescue mode.

Fortunately, the Mather Nobel Prize replica was at the National Mall Building.  And, notwithstanding the pressures they were facing, the Museum’s loan staff were willing to do all of the work (and paperwork) necessary to prepare an object for loan in only 24 hours, without cutting corners.  Within days, Museum staff had hand-delivered the replica Nobel Prize to NASA Headquarters in Washington, DC.

Surprisingly, tracking the transit of a Nobel Prize is not very different than tracking any other package.  Because time was short, NASA shipped Mather’s Nobel to the Johnson Spaceflight Center in Houston, Texas via FedEx.  Entering the tracking number in the website, one could “watch” the Nobel make its way to the astronaut office.

Atlantis

Space shuttle Atlantis lifts off from Launch Pad 39A at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida to begin the STS-132 mission to the International Space Station.

The completion of the complex loan delivery came with glad tidings and good humor.  When he received the package, Piers Sellers e-mailed the Museum, “Hello everyone.  I have received the Nobel Prize. (I always wanted to say that.) I will hand it over to NASA pronto.  Best, P.”

Margaret A. Weitekamp is a curator in the Division of Space History at the National Air and Space Museum

Reflections on Post-Cold War Issues for International Space Cooperation

In the 1990s the United States collaborative space policy entered an extended period of transition from the earlier era of Cold War, one in which NASA has been compelled to deal with international partners on a much more even footing than ever before.

Apollo 17

Will the next flag on the Moon be a national flag or one representative of humankind as a whole? This image from Apollo 17 shows the U.S. flag on the Moon, an important symbolic moment for the United States in the Cold War race to the Moon with the Soviet Union. Those times have passed and cooperative efforts are the norm for the future.

This was true for several reasons. U.S. preeminence in space technology was rapidly declining, especially in launcher technology as other nations built their own internal capabilities. This was especially true of the European Space Agency’s superb Ariane launcher. This made it increasingly possible for other nations to “go it alone,” as a vernacular expression states.

U.S. commitment to sustained “preeminence” in space activities also waned and significantly less public monies went into NASA missions. The Clinton administration’s “National Space Policy” of September 29, 1996, for example, abandoned the language of preeminence that had been used since the origins of the space race in the 1950s. In addition, NASA’s budget declined in terms of real dollars every year from 1993 to 2000.

Of international cooperative projects that remained, NASA increasingly acceded to the demands of collaborators to develop critical systems and technologies. This overturned a longstanding policy of not allowing partners onto the critical technological path, something that had been flirted with but not accepted in the Space Shuttle development project.

This was in large measure a pragmatic decision on the part of American officials. Because of the increasing size and complexity of projects, according to former NASA international relations chief Kenneth Pedersen in 1992, more recent projects have produced “numerous critical paths whose upkeep costs alone will defeat U.S. efforts to control and supply them.”

Pedersen added, “It seems unrealistic today to believe that other nations possessing advanced technical capabilities and harboring their own economic competitiveness objectives will be amenable to funding and developing only ancillary systems.”

In addition to these important developments, the rise of competitive economic activities in space has mitigated the prospects for future collaborations. The brutal competition for launch business, the cutthroat nature of space applications, and the rich possibilities for space-based economic activities have created a climate in which international ventures may once again become the exception.

Historian John Krige astutely commented in 1998 that “collaboration has worked most smoothly when the science or technology concerned is not of direct strategic (used here to mean commercial or military) importance. As soon as a government feels that its national interests are directly involved in a field of R&D, it would prefer to go it alone.” He also noted that the success of cooperative projects may take as their central characteristic that they have “no practical application in at least the short to medium term.”

I would add that the sole exception to this perspective might be when nations decide that for prestige or diplomatic purposes it is appropriate to cooperate in space. A superb example of this is the effort beginning in 1992 to bring the Russians into the space station program already underway by a consortium of nations as a means of building stronger ties to Russia in the early post-Cold War era.

One of the key conclusions that we might reach about the course of international cooperation between the United States and its international collaborators in space is that it has been an enormously difficult process. I am reminded of the quote attributed to Wernher von Braun, “we can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming.” Even so, cooperative space endeavors have been richly rewarding and overwhelmingly useful, from all manner of scientific, technical, social, and political perspectives.

International Space Station Components

The International Space Station is the most significant international cooperative program in the history of spaceflight. This image shows the components of the station and which nation constructed them.

Kenneth Pedersen observed in 1983, “international space cooperation is not a charitable enterprise; countries cooperate because they judge it in their interest to do so.” For continued cooperative efforts in space to proceed into the twenty-first century it is imperative that those desiring them define appropriate projects and ensure that national leaders judge them as being of interest and worthy of pursuing them in a cooperative manner.

Roger D. Launius is a senior curator in the Space History Division of the National Air and Space Museum.

Amelia Earhart: Viva la Vega

It was 78 years ago, on May 20, 1932, that Amelia Earhart set out in her Lockheed 5B Vega to become the first woman to fly nonstop and alone over the Atlantic Ocean.  Departing from  Harbour Grace, Newfoundland and landing in Londonderry, Northern Ireland about 15 hours later, she also became only the second person to solo the Atlantic, the first being Charles Lindbergh in 1927. It was also her second trip across the Atlantic.  Earhart first came to the public’s attention four years earlier, in June 1928, when she made headlines for doing nothing more than riding as a passenger–but she was the first female to do so.  And although it didn’t matter to the public that she never touched the controls of the aircraft during the transatlantic flight from Newfoundland to Wales, it mattered to Earhart.  After all, she had insisted on and been promised a chance to fly the Fokker F.VII Friendship aircraft.  Instead, pilot Bill Stultz flew the entire time, giving Earhart the controls only on the short final hop from Wales to Southampton, England (Lou Gordon was along as co-pilot and mechanic as well).

Amelia Earhart

Amelia Earhart, dressed in flying suit, standing on steps on left side of nose of her Lockheed 5B Vega amidst a crowd of people at Culmore, North Ireland after her historic solo flight across the Atlantic from Harbour Grace, Newfoundland, c. May 21, 1932.

Why was it so important to her to fly the Atlantic herself?  To prove she could do it.  She wanted the respect of other pilots, especially the other female pilots of the era.  Despite her fame, Earhart knew she wasn’t fully accepted as an accomplished pilot.  Since the 1928 flight, she had some modest success setting speed records and placed a respectable third in the 1929 Women’s Air Derby, the first cross-country race for women pilots.  She was the first woman to fly an autogyro in 1931 and she set an altitude record in it too, but her otherwise wildly popular cross country tour was marred by two accidents.

Earhart , who began flying in 1921 and earned a license in 1923, wanted a career in aviation and she was ably assisted in this goal by George Palmer Putnam, a master promoter and publisher who had arranged the publicity surrounding the flights of Charles Lindbergh and polar explorer Richard Byrd. Together she and Putnam formulated plans for her career:  “I make a flight, then I lecture on it.”  She wrote about the 1928 flight in her book, 20 hours and 40 minutes, and then traveled all over the country lecturing in support of aviation and careers for women.  She wrote about her flights in magazine articles, helped found the women’s flying organization the Ninety-Nines, and did public relations for early airline companies.  But she knew her career needed a shot in the arm from an ambitious and high profile flight–and she wanted to fly the Atlantic alone.

Other women pilots were nipping at her celebrity heels.  In 1928, Louise Thaden was the first woman to simultaneously hold the women’s altitude, endurance, and speed records in light planes and in 1929 she won the Women’s Air Derby.  Young record-setter Elinor Smith was named one of the three best pilots in the U.S. in 1930 and in 1931, Ruth Nichols held the women’s world speed, altitude, and distance records.  Nichols also wanted to solo the Atlantic but her first attempt ended with a crash at her planned takeoff location in Newfoundland in the summer of 1931.  Both Earhart and Nichols continued to prepare for transatlantic flights though it was not an acknowledged race between the two friends.

But by May 1932, Nichols was not ready.  Earhart and her Lockheed Vega, thoroughly prepared and tested by veteran pilot Bernt Balchen, were.  Finally, when the weather cleared enough for her to fly to Newfoundland, the timing was perfect for her and George Putnam: May 20, five years to the day after Lindbergh’s epic flight.

Lockheed Vega

Amelia Earhart's Lockheed Model 5B Vega on display in the Barron Hilton Pioneers of Flight gallery at the National Air and Space Museum.

Earhart departed Harbour Grace in the evening but soon ran into poor weather. During her 2,026-mile nonstop flight she fought fatigue and nausea, a leaky fuel tank, and a cracked manifold weld that spewed flames out of the side of the engine cowling.  Ice formed on the Vega’s wings, causing an unstoppable 3,000-foot descent to just above the waves.  When she sighted land she came down into a farmer’s field and asked, “Where am I?”  It was Culmore, near Londonderry in Northern Ireland.   Although it wasn’t Paris, it was the first solo transatlantic flight by a woman.  Amelia Earhart had reached her immediate goals of completing a challenging flight, receiving the respect of her fellow aviators and carving out a career in aviation.   She would not rest on those laurels.

Dorothy Cochrane is a curator in the Aeronautics Department of the National Air and Space Museum

Stewardesses, a radical idea

This month marks 80 years of female flight attendants. It’s hard to imagine a time without them, but until 1930, airlines employed male stewards. That changed when Ellen Church, a nurse from Iowa, approached Steve Simpson at Boeing Air Transport (later United Airlines) with the radical idea of putting women nurses on airliners.  Church had wanted to be a pilot, but realized that she had no chance for that in the climate of the day. She convinced Simpson that the presence of female employees might help relieve the public’s fear of flying. Church developed the job description and training program for the first class of eight stewardesses, called the “original eight.”

Original Eight

United Air Lines' "Original Eight" female flight attendants.

Upon completion of the class, Church worked the Oakland to Chicago route.  She served only eighteen months when an automobile accident grounded her. After her recovery she returned to nursing, and her stint as a stewardess was over.  However, her idea transformed the airline industry.  Did you know that the first stewardesses were required to have nursing experience? Qualifications for flight attendants have changed a lot over the years.  At one time airlines required stewardesses to have an appearance  “just below Hollywood standards.” Today, some would argue that the glamor is gone.  What do you think?

Stewardess

1960's flight attendant in a uniform designed by Emilio Pucci. The plastic bubble helmet, to protect hairdos on windy tarmacs, was an integral part of the Pucci-designed uniforms.

Try out this fun online checklist and see if you could have qualified to be a flight attendant in the early 1950s.

To explore more about the history of commercial aviation, check out our online version of the exhibition America by Air.

“There is still a newness about air travel, and, though statistics demonstrate its safety, the psychological effect of having a girl on board is enormous.”

-  Comment about the addition of stewardesses from an airline magazine, 1935

Tim Grove is Chief of Education at the National Air and Space Museum’s Mall building.