news flash.......mosley bleeds from O-ring.

"Stuf4" wrote in message
om...
From Ami:

We are in agreement that NASA was not a military agency. But unlike
your highway analogy, notice that NASA *did* have many military
personnel.

We are? I was pretty sure that you were arguing otherwise.

Clearly, NASA was created as a civilian agency. It was civilian in
1958. It is civilian today.

The view I have been presenting is that NASA's mission of human
spaceflight had, primarily, a military purpose critical to national
defense.

So we are mostly disagreeing about terminology. To me, national defense does
not imply military. Military implies being under the control and oversight
of the DoD. The TSA is not military, the CIA is not military, but both are
vital to national defense.
Civilian government agencies could be split into two groups: those
that had national defense roles, and those that didn't. At the top of
the non-defense list, you'd find:

- The National Endowment for the Arts.
- ...

At the top of the other list, you'd find:

- NASA
- AEC
- CIA
- ...

And while NASA is a civilian agency, I would not apply the adjective
"non-military" because the military was so heavily involved in NASA.

But it is still civilian.
section on Atlas and Titan boosters omitted.
NASA ordered the Atlas and the Titan boosters straight from the Air
Force, not the contractors. I don't know what Atlas modifications you
are referring to, but in the case of the Titan, minor modifications
(for pogo suppression, etc) could actually be used by the Air Force as
improvements to future versions of the ICBM.

Sure, were they? I'm not saying that there wasn't a very close
co-development cycle on the Atlas and the Titan II, but that
co-development
cycle was broken for the Saturn and various Delta, Centaur etc.
planetary
probe launchers.

The impression I have gotten is that the Air Force was generally
opposed to independent NASA development.

Probably because the funding pot would be split more ways.
....
Sure, but I don't think that "militarized" means what you think it does.
It
means "taken over by the military", or "issued arms". If anything, NASA
"civilianized" military officers by including them in a civilian agency.

I was saying that NASA took over military programs for human
spaceflight. NASA could have done their own, starting from scratch.
They didn't. The Mercury 7 could have been seven civilians. They
weren't.

Which indicates that the military programs were de-militarized.
And the fact that astronauts were given *military promotion in rank*
for flying a space mission goes directly against your notion of having
civilianized them.

Not really. It has been common for military officers who supported civilian
efforts to receive promotions in order to maintain their career path. A
number of astronaut candidates were worried that they would spend five years
in NASA, fly maybe one flight, and come back at the same rank, and never get
their career back on track. Tying the promotions to flight was a sign by the
military that the officers were accomplishing a mission important to the
nation, and probably made more symbolic sense than just giving them a
promotion when they got back. IIRC, Tom Stafford eventually made BG and
commanded either a squadron or an air wing. Mary can correct me if I'm
wrong, but didn't military test pilots who worked for NACA/NASA also get
promotions?


There are others on this forum who have voiced that same view. It
basically holds that Mercury and Gemini had military implications.
Apollo didn't. And then the shuttle program again was military.

I certainly agree that Apollo was not a weapon. Now perhaps you'd
like to add your take on the direct words of JFK that the sole
justification for funding Apollo was its national security
implications.

I've posted the transcript. Here's a link with the audio if you'd
like to hear the man speak himself:

http://history.nasa.gov/JFK-Webbconv/index.html

I agree with you, and I agree with Kennedy, especially at the time. It's
about National Security because of the following:
1. It proves a useful technological demonstration that the US is ahead of
the Soviet Union. This has enormous second-order effects, particularly in
terms of which way unaligned developing countries would lean.
2. By pulling ahead of the Soviet Union in the space race, the US would
better be able to shape the international consensus on the peaceful use of
space, in particular, the allowance of space satellites for weather and
operational reconnaissance, navigation, and communication.

.... discussion snipped

Part of national defense does not mean military. There are plenty of
parts
of the government which are, in part, a part of national defense (such
as
the CDC) which are nevertheless civilian. Some of these even have
military
officers who are attached to them. NASA had a heavy military presence
because those military officers had the required skills that NASA
needed.
Their secondment or transfer was negotiated among the stakeholders.

Required skills?! Let's check that!

Ham and Enos had the required skills to pilot a Mercury capsule. You,
Ami, have the required skills. NASA had many thousands of
non-military candidates available to them who could have done just
fine.

I do not have the required skills. For one, I'm too fat The key word is
"pilot". Ham and Enos would not, even together, been capable of carrying out
Gordon Cooper's mission. The goal was human space flight. Animal flights are
limited excursions testing part of the vehicles capabilities. One of the
purposes of Mercury (as it evolved) was to gain experience in human space
flight, and to give humans experience in space flight, prepatory to Apollo.

From "This New Ocean"
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...4201/ch5-8.htm, discussing the
original draft civil service announcement for astronaut candidates:

"Furthermore, the job qualifications required proof that applicants had
demonstrated recently their "(a) willingness to accept hazards comparable to
those encountered in modern research airplane flight; (b) capacity to
tolerate rigorous and severe environmental conditions; and (c) ability to
react adequately under conditions of stress or emergency."

Examples of the types of experience included experimental test pilot,
explorer, military, sky-diver etc. There was also a description of the
astronauts duties.
Again, from "This New Ocean"
"President Eisenhower during the 1958 Christmas holidays decided that the
pool of military test pilots already in existence was quite sufficient a
source from which to draw. Since certain classified aspects would inevitably
be involved, military test pilots could most conveniently satisfy security
considerations."

A military presence was deliberately infused into NASA's most visible
roles, even though it was totally unnecessary.


It was not totally unnecessary. It was expedient to go ahead with a pool of
candidates who were, by their profession, already relatively qualified. This
was back in the 50s, when issues of "equal opportunity" hadn't yet caught
on. The White house, with (at times grudging) NASA acceptance decided
against an open audition, and limited the initial astronaut candidate set to
those with test pilot experience. (There were a total of seven
requirements.) It may have been unnecessary, but, given that the program had
National security implications, this seemed the cheapest, fastest, and most
efficient way to get the job. Unless there had been an ideological component
to the selection saying "we must have civilians", why not go with a
pre-selected small pool? Remember, this was not today's society.
snip

There were plenty of civilians who, like military test pilots,
*already had their clearance*.

That Right Stuff story does not hold water.

But were they otherwise qualified, and was there the capacity to screen for
them? Remember, the selection process as actually implemented started with
screening a known and bounded set of records (service pilots) versus a civil
service application.
snip
"Ike melded the NACA to *parts* of DoD..."

(Take the case of JPL and Redstone getting broken away from the Army
and absorbed by NASA as two examples.)

Yes, but he was taking parts of the DoD and giving them to NASA. That
seems
to me that part of the DoD became parts of NASA.

(That is what I was saying.)
OK, I misunderstood.

The biggest case of the
opposite would have occured had shuttles actually been launched from
Vandenberg under AF control.

That would have been interesting to see.

I would even guess that several of the moonwalkers themselves got so
wrapped up into the PR aspects that they lost contact with the sole
justification that JFK had to remind Jim Webb about.

Most of the moonwalkers hadn't even been in NASA when JFK was alive.
During
that period, six years was a long period of time. I doubt that any of
the
astronauts were explicitly aware of JFK's justification. They were aware
that they were participating in operations in the national interest.

Eight of the twelve moonwalkers were selected while JFK was alive.
While none of the twelve may have been at JFK's private meeting, they
*all* knew what the Cold War was about.

Sure. But they had been through hundred, if not thousands, of hours of
trainings, simulations and the like which involved the mission. I doubt that
most of the moonwalkers even got wrapped up in the PR aspects for very long.
It was about a thermonuclear standoff.

All of those astronauts knew that they were volunteering to ride atop
ICBM boosters.

But by the time they were very involved in the program I doubt that they
thought much about that... they were too busy trying to learn as much as
possible about their launch vehicle and space crafts operation.
There was lots more going on to tell them that their primary mission
was thermonuclear power projection. Khrushchev boldly stated in
public that his cosmonauts could just as well have been warheads. I
provided links to that NORAD slideshow equating Vostok to a nuclear
onslaught. There have been hundreds of posts on this forum discussing
the overt signs of how the purpose of NASA was nuclear deterrence.

Mostly by you.

Power project does not mean technology demonstration. Besides, many of the
pilots had wartime experience, or had served in active fighter wings,
including some with nukes. It probably didn't bother them.
(You can search the archives for ["space race" "nuclear threat"] to
review many of the facts presented.)


A question that I would be very intrigued to hear them field is, "What
connection do you see between Apollo and the nuclear arms race?"

I would be interested in seeing what they would say about that as well.
The
results are likely to be suprising to one or the other of us.

Actually I would not be surprised if none of them admit to seeing any
connection. I'm sure that they'd all prefer to be remembered as
having peacefully served all mankind, instead of bio-placebo warheads
along with the astrochimps.

But how does Apollo, divorced from Gemini and Mercury, have anything to do
with nuclear warheads? Not all of the cold war was about nukes. A lot was
about showing how your superpower was a worker's paradise, or that your
country had the best technology, so you should buy our
tanks/fighterplanes/political ideology. I think that the later part of the
space race, especially the lunar programs, was more general. Both sides had
already demonstrated the theoretical ability to place nukes anywhere they
wanted. They were playing the moon race not for each other to see, but for
the rest of the world.

"Stuf4" wrote in message
om...
I was saying that NASA took over military programs for human
spaceflight. NASA could have done their own, starting from scratch.
They didn't. The Mercury 7 could have been seven civilians. They
weren't.

....

There were plenty of civilians who, like military test pilots,
*already had their clearance*.

You know, putting these together does make me wonder why they didn't, in
their screening, at least look at the civilian high-performance test pilots,
at least for PR reasons. I can see why they didn't want open recruiting, and
I can see why they went with military test pilots (since sufficient records
existed for pre-screening), but I don't know why they didn't invite the
handful of obviously qualified civilians (like Armstrong, for example). I
suppose that it might be that, since they weren't active duty, they couldn't
be ordered to keep quiet about the selection procedure, but they could have
been fired if they blabbed I suppose. In that case, we probably would have
had the Mercury 8 -- 3 AF, 3 USN, 1 Marine, and a civilian.

"Doug..." wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...


OM wrote:

...Me, I salute even thought I no longer wear the uniform. To be
totally honest, I've always felt that the hand-over-heart was sort
of...well, a bit fey.


Wouldn't it be cool to give a Romulan salute instead?

Um, Pat -- you *do* know that the Romulan salute (fist to heart and then
outstretched) is actually the old Roman salute, don't you?

Come to think of it, since the U.S. of A. is rapidly conforming to the
path followed by the old Roman Empire, that salute may well be
appropriate these days...

I would have said the path to the Empire. There are a lot of parallels to
the late Republic just before Sulla.

Andre Lieven wrote:

Jeeze...what a surprise... :-D



Kinda reminds one of Brad Guth's prior use of a map of *Mars* for
Venus, on his site...

That one's still a classic. :-D

Pat

"Ami Silberman" wrote in message ...
"Kevin Willoughby" wrote in message
...
In article , derekl1963
@nospamyahoo.com says...
(LaDonna Wyss) wrote:
WHERE do you get the BRASS to call me a liar when you haven't the
first clue what you are talking about?????

When one spouts something that is utterly and completely at odds with
facts well documented, one is a liar.

"Spouting something ... at odds with the facts..." is necessary but not
sufficient to be a liar. If one is honestly ignorant, misinformed or
obstinately unwilling to learn the truth, then telling an untruth isn't
a lie. It is possible that La Donna belives what she is saying.
--
She may fit Mark Perakh's ("Unintelligent Design") definition of a
dilettante as being someone who is convinced, after cursory study, that he
or she knows so much more than the experts in the field, who are accused of
just taking things on faith, and who have failed to notice that their theory
is really stupid.

Au contrare. I have never said they "failed to notice." NASA knows
EXACTLY what went on with that fire. They're just not telling the
truth.
LaDonna

Doug... wrote:


Um, Pat -- you *do* know that the Romulan salute (fist to heart and then
outstretched) is actually the old Roman salute, don't you?

Come to think of it, since the U.S. of A. is rapidly conforming to the
path followed by the old Roman Empire, that salute may well be
appropriate these days...




We've already got those two Fasces in our House of Representatives, all
we need is a statue of the Bush brothers sucking oil out of a she-wolf's
paps.

Pat

Pat Flannery ) writes:
Andre Lieven wrote:

Jeeze...what a surprise... :-D

Kinda reminds one of Brad Guth's prior use of a map of *Mars* for
Venus, on his site...

That one's still a classic. :-D

Yep, for sheer efficient loonacy, thats the one to beat...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Ami Silberman wrote:


"Kevin Willoughby" wrote in message
...
In article , derekl1963
@nospamyahoo.com says...
(LaDonna Wyss) wrote:
WHERE do you get the BRASS to call me a liar when you haven't the
first clue what you are talking about?????

When one spouts something that is utterly and completely at odds with
facts well documented, one is a liar.

"Spouting something ... at odds with the facts..." is necessary but not
sufficient to be a liar. If one is honestly ignorant, misinformed or
obstinately unwilling to learn the truth, then telling an untruth isn't
a lie. It is possible that La Donna belives what she is saying. --

She may fit Mark Perakh's ("Unintelligent Design") definition of a
dilettante as being someone who is convinced, after cursory study, that
he or she knows so much more than the experts in the field, who are
accused of just taking things on faith, and who have failed to notice
that their theory is really stupid.

Which reminds me of:

From Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design

The odds are greatly against you being immensely smarter than
everyone else in the field. If your analysis says your terminal
velocity is twice the speed of light, the chances are better that
you've screwed up than that you've invented warp drive.

--
rk, Just an OldEngineer
"Dealing properly with very rare events is one of the attributes that
distinguishes a design that is fit for safety-critical systems from one that
is not." -- John Rushby in "A Comparison of Bus Architectures for Safety-
Critical Embedded Systems," March 2003

In article ,
Kevin Willoughby wrote:

"Spouting something ... at odds with the facts..." is necessary but not
sufficient to be a liar. If one is honestly ignorant, misinformed or
obstinately unwilling to learn the truth, then telling an untruth isn't
a lie. It is possible that La Donna belives what she is saying.

Intentionally remaining ignorant in the face of overwhelming
countervailing proof is tantamount to lying, IMHO.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Columbia Loss FAQ:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
"Alan Erskine"

Such intellect.

You'll give him an ego if you keep that up, and there's only room for your,
"scott"'s, Stuffie's, Copy Boy's and OM's egos. Mary, JimO and Henry are
entitled to them but choose to keep them at home.