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

"OM" om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org wrote
in message ...
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 22:31:17 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:
I imagine they could have put their hands over their Hasselblads and
recited the Pledge Of Allegiance, but I doubt that would have made much
of a historic photo.

...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.

And, never having been in the military but hanging out with a bunch of
military and ex-military types, I would feel improper saluting. Instead, I
do the hand-over heart thing during the anthem or a flag presentation.

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
m...
You know what some of this reminds me of? I'm reminded of those
dip-sh**s in the military who, when asked something that was not
specifically outlined in some manual somewhere, WAS CLUELESS TO
RESPOND. If it wasn't on a piece of paper, they couldn't figure it
out. (I refer to the portion where someone--Ami?--asked for a
citation regarding saluting out of habit. I can't tell for sure
because in the "respond" page everything is black instead of
color-coded.) Prime example of such "If it ain't in the regs I ain't
gonna do it" mentality: December 7, 1941, Hickam Field: Ammunition
is locked up, guard is posted with orders not to let anyone open it,
bombs are dropping, people are dying, and this fool refuses to open
the locker without orders. (Does anyone need "verifiable references"
for this???)

I was asking because we have ample documentation of every single moonwalk.
The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal has comments by 11 of the 12 moonwalkers
(John Young hadn't commented, IIRC), and I was wondering if any of them
mentioned why they saluted. It isn't important enough for me to want to look
it up, but I was wondering if CT had, or had read something about it, or was
pulling it out of thin air. IIRC at least one astronaut (Shepard IIRC),
stated that he saluted because seeing the flag on the moon made him feel
very patriotic. That doesn't seem like "reflex" to me. I would have asked
the same question if CT had said that the military astros had been ordered
to salute.

Herb Schaltegger wrote in message ...
In article ,
(LaDonna Wyss) wrote:

(I hate when this thing doesn't post your message and you have to
start over.) Anyway, I was trying to say I am reminded of my military
days; you know, those idiots who cannot figure out how to do anything
if it is not in the reg book. (I think it's AMI who asks about a
citation regarding saluting the flag out of habit? I can't tell since
the color-coding is gone in reply mode.) I've often wanted to tell
some of those dip-sh**s in the military, "So, if it doesn't
specifically tell you in a regulation that you can go to the bathroom,
you will never go???" Prime example of this mentality (which
permeates this news group, by the way): December 7, 1941, Hickam
Field: The ammunition is locked up, a guard is posted with orders not
to open it for anyone, the bombs are dropping, people are dying, and
this fool refuses to open the locker without orders. (Does anyone
need "verifiable references" for this one???) Some things are just
common sense--which is obviously not-so-common anymore.
CT, you go. You are doing great, and it is wonderful to read a voice
of reason in here for a change.
LaDonna

Don't you have quite enough to do about answering questions you've
already promised to answer without posting new nonsense, liar?

Well, Herb, you certainly are making my life easy this afternoon.
There's really nothing to comment on when the only word someone can
come up with is "liar." Shall I descend into dueling posts saying,
"No, I'm not." "Yes, you are."??? I think not.
LaDonna

On 2004-06-15, Ami Silberman wrote:

I have never seen a single photo of any non-military astronaut
saluting the flag on the Moon. I am guessing that they considered it
improper for a civilian to do that.

Well, the civilians could hardly hold their hats over their hearts, could
they...

More to the point - I love the implication that there were lots and lots
and lots of non-military astronauts to pick from. One datapoint is not a
sample set of any real validity...

I think that deciding whether to salute the flag or not was a personal
decision. I'm waiting for Fox to release the Apollo 17 DVD, when I get it
I'll figure out if Schmidt saluted the flag. Tonight I'll check to see if
Armstrong did.

Remember that whilst Armstrong didn't come to NASA through a military
"career track", he was former military; USN, 1949-52.

I'm even having difficulty figuring out whether all (or most)
of the military astronauts saluted the flag, or just paused to look at it
respectfully (like Aldrin appears to have done, although he did salute
President Nixon).

I din't think "they" warned anyone about how to behave for the Nixon
call... g

--
-Andrew Gray

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

NASA was created as a civilian agency. Its nature was national
defense. They owned and operated lots of ICBM boosters. There are
hundreds of indicators that have been presented to this forum. The
single most direct that I know of is from the private words of JFK
where he stated point blank that the sole justification for funding
Apollo was because of the "defense implications".

For whatever reason you snipped that reference without comment.

It was irrelevent. The federal highway system was originally funded for
its
defense implications, but that doesn't make it a military road, nor
toll-collectors on toll portions of it military personel.

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.
And NASA did not
own or operate a single ICBM booster. They owned and operated boosters
which
had been developed as boosters for ICBMs, but were modified for manned
and
unmanned space missions.

Both the weaponized ICBM and the Mercury booster carried the exact
same Air Force designation:

Atlas-D.

But there were differences between the two versions.
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/prog...unch/atlas.htm says that the
man-rated ones were the Atlas LV-3B variant, which was the first operational
version of the Atlas ICBM, but in 1960 the AF moved to the CGM-16D model.
http://www.simnasa.org/mercury/launch_vehicles.html says that "Extensive
redesign of several systems was needed in order to "man rate" this missile".

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.
(And to avoid an extremely narrow focus, I'll point out that ICBM
refers to a ballistic missile that has intercontinental range. The
Air Force put nukes on top. NASA put astronauts there.)

I'm sure that civilian agencies used plenty of
Jeeps, which were originally military vehicles. That doesn't mean that
those
agencies were militarized.

I consider it to be a plain fact that NASA was militarized. Military
pilots flying on top of military rockets. Those boosters even had Air
Force serial numbers.

The plan to launch test pilots into space atop Redstone rockets and
Atlas rockets existed before NASA ever came into existence. They were
Army and Air Force programs. NASA simply took over.

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.

NASA was an important part of the cold war, which, broadly speaking, was
about defending the American way of life. Not everything involved in
doing
so was military. NASA utilized experienced military personel, rented
space
from the Air Force, and used equipment developed originally for the
military. They did not, however, participate in deterence, force
projection,
nor (until the shuttle) military development.

No? You might be interested in looking at this Vintage NORAD
Slideshow that was posted to the forum a couple of years ago. I'll
cut straight to a two slide sequence:

http://www.pinetreeline.org/slides/slide12.html
http://www.pinetreeline.org/slides/slide13.html

The first slide is of nuclear annihilation of America. The second
slide shows the orbital groundtracks of Vostok 3 and 4. The message
is crystal clear:

Launches of ICBMs with human payloads communicates nuclear destructive
capability (as Sputnik did years before).

Yes, true. I am more or less in agreement with you that the initial manned
programs of both the USSR and the USA both communicated military nuances --
particularly the Vostok, Mercury, and Salyut programs. (And the USSR
actually had purely military programs such as the Almaz.) I just think that
this ended with the start of Apollo. The Saturn was not a launch vehicle
with any real military purpose, and there was no intent for it to launch
military payloads. (Unlike the Titan III, for example.)
They even handed off
development of MOL to the Air Force. The military role of NASA (as
opposed
to the role of the military in NASA) was primarily as a technology
demonstrator. It showed that the US had the technological superiority
over
the Soviet Union, and did so in an open manner. It had the military
implications that if space were to become directly militarized, the US
would
be in a better position than the Soviets to do so.

I agree with that.

Take a look at those pictures of astronauts standing on the Moon
saluting the flag. They are doing so out of habit, because they are
active duty military personnel.


(http://images.google.com/images?sour...e=UTF-8&q=apol
lo+salute)

This is never mentioned in the Apollo Surface Journal. Do you have a
citation for anyone stating that the salute was done out of habit? IIRC,
at
least one astronaut said that he did so because it seemed the correct
thing
to do. Remember, this was a time when patriotism was expressed quite
openly.

My point was that military personnel are habitually trained to salute.
I don't see it as a controversial statement (if you want, you can put
the two together and surmise that it "seemed the correct thing to do"
because of the habit).

OK, but the fact that they did so doesn't seem to buttress the argument that
NASA was a militarized operation any more than just the fact that they were
military officers. BTW, I've been in DoD facilities that were "no hat, no
salute" areas. This doesn't mean that they were "civilian" facilities.
....
* Anyone who maintains that NASA is non-military has completely missed
the very essence of NASA. *

It was about national defense in 1958. It is still about national
defense today. Eisenhower created it to consolidate key military
space programs. JFK hammers the point that it was funded as a defense
program. Reagan repeats that theme in his 1982 space policy.

Anything more recent? It was about national defense (satellite recon) in
the
late 50s. It was about technology demonstration and possible defense
applications in JFKs day (but it was not funded by the DoD.) Reagan was
pushing the shuttle as a vital carrier for military payloads, including
SDI.

Those are three solid points. More recent? It all seemed downhill
from Reagan. But if we look hard enough, I'm sure we'd find
something.

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.
It was never the essence of the planetary science portion of NASA, and
it is
very arguable whether the manned program was more than part-time
dedicated
to defense needs. As an artifact of history (the cold war), NASA was
originally staffed with many active duty defense people, and people who
had
worked for the services, because they had the experience, and the
security
clearances. (Just because something is civilian doesn't mean that it
doesn't
require security.)

Security clearances aren't all that hard to get for people who walk in
off the street. Even Bill Clinton can get one! I've never taken much
stock in that explanation for why test pilots were chosen.

I believe that they were much more difficult to get during the 60s. Also,
the delay (at least today) until final approval is over a year. Another
issue was that, unlike many DoD or miltiary jobs which require a clearance
to continue, it was felt that the astronaut candidates needed clearances to
participate in the initial screening.
If you want to know why today NASA is dying, it is because it is no
longer needed in this defense role. The threat has changed. As Ike
melded the NACA with DoD to meet the threat in 1958, we may see Bush
decide to meld the FAA with DoD to meet the threats of today. That's
what the Department of Homeland Security reorg was all about. It is
"today's NASA". 9-11 is "today's Sputnik".

NACA became part of the DoD? That's news to me. There are a lot of
agreements between the DoD and NASA, but that doesn't mean NASA is part
of
the DoD. Where in
http://www.defenselink.mil/odam/omp/...ok/Pdf/DoD.PDF, which is
the
organization of the DoD, is NASA? It's not a command, an agency,
anywhere.

In an attempt to clear up this disconnect, I'll go back and be more
explicit:

"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. The biggest case of the
opposite would have occured had shuttles actually been launched from
Vandenberg under AF control.
Is anyone still confused? I'll defer to LaDonna's excellent statement
that this whole subthread sprouted off of:

"...surely with the news coverage of the
past week you have heard of the "Cold War?" What do you think the
race to the Moon was all about?"

That still doesn't make everything involved with the Cold War part of
the
defense establishment, the military, or the DoD.

What happened is that there was so much focus on the cheerleader
aspects of the space program, the public lost sight of it's primary
reason for being funded. If a poll taken today were to state- Check
off the following agencies that were part of the Cold War defense
establishment:

__ Air Force
__ Atomic Energy Commission
__ Navy
__ NASA
__ Army
__ CIA


...I expect that the vast majority would not include NASA.

At least as of today, only the Army and the Davy are defense agencies. The
others are all involved in national defense to a greater or lesser extent,
but are not under control of the DoD. For example, the CIA is under the
State Department.

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.

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.

Ami Silberman wrote:

And the photo "Aldrin Saluting the Flag" on the site LaDonna posted has him
with his hands by his sides.


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

Pat

In article ,
(LaDonna Wyss) wrote:

Don't you have quite enough to do about answering questions you've
already promised to answer without posting new nonsense, liar?

Well, Herb, you certainly are making my life easy this afternoon.
There's really nothing to comment on when the only word someone can
come up with is "liar." Shall I descend into dueling posts saying,
"No, I'm not." "Yes, you are."??? I think not.
LaDonna

Prove me wrong and post the email - including all headers - that you
have alleged at least twice that I sent you. In addition, provide that
easy-to-obtain information rk has requested several times; provide the
name of your pathologist that you said you would provide when "scott"
got back (he's posted since then so obviously he was back for awhile);
you claimed you could easily prove Derek wrong when he questioned you
and yet you have not; et cetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

In short, lady, put up or forever be branded "liar" by your own posts
and omissions.

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

In article ,
Andrew Gray wrote:
...I'm waiting for Fox to release the Apollo 17 DVD, when I get it
I'll figure out if Schmidt saluted the flag. Tonight I'll check to see if
Armstrong did.

Remember that whilst Armstrong didn't come to NASA through a military
"career track", he was former military; USN, 1949-52.

Indeed, Schmitt was the first American to fly in space without a formal
military background, period. The first scientist-astronaut group were the
first astronauts who did not have to meet pilot qualifications that
essentially demanded military flying experience, and he was the first
of them to fly.

(He may have been the first person of any nationality to fly in space
without any sort of military background. There is some uncertainty about
whether all the early Korolev-bureau flight engineers were reservists,
although it seems likely. Tereshkova was a civilian when recruited, but
held a commission as an air-force junior lieutenant by the time she flew.)
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

On 2004-06-16, Henry Spencer wrote:

(He may have been the first person of any nationality to fly in space
without any sort of military background. There is some uncertainty about
whether all the early Korolev-bureau flight engineers were reservists,
although it seems likely.

I'd have assumed that, in just-post-war USSR, it'd be simplest to assume
someone had been conscripted at some point unless demonstrated otherwise...

--
-Andrew Gray

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
There's really nothing to comment on when the only word someone can
come up with is "liar."

But you found a way, anyway.

Besides, you've promised to answer many questions, and have failed to do so.
You *are* a liar until you answer those questions. For example, what are the
names and jurisdictions of the law enforcement personnel you said you talked
to? What are the names and verifiable contact information for your "team"?