Farmer Astronaut

Any comments, and does it say something about NASA and current space
access?

Has NASA lost its way in trying to be many things, but ... From its
early days as the I remember the Civilian Space .. what was it called,
and its bylaws and reasons for being in the beginning?

Mike
Alaska

--

wrote in message
oups.com...
Any comments, and does it say something about NASA and current space
access?

Has NASA lost its way in trying to be many things, but ... From its
early days as the I remember the Civilian Space .. what was it called,
and its bylaws and reasons for being in the beginning?

Mike
Alaska
Wait a minute... we're talking about a Billybob Thornton movie, for crying
out loud! It says nothing about NASA. It may be based, BASED, on a story
about an actual person, but a screen play, which is an adaptation of the
story is what we are seeing. Just as The Right Stuff said nothing about NASA
it was a book turned into a movie. I read the book, saw the movie, and
gleaned very little actual knowledge. Reading Alan Shepard's biography shows
me that The Right Stuff is a very sensationalized work.
Jim in Houston
oSpAm
Nurse's creed: Fill what's empty, empty what's full, and scratch where it
itches!!

On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 02:00:42 -0600, "Jim" wrote:

Just as The Right Stuff said nothing about NASA
it was a book turned into a movie. I read the book, saw the movie, and
gleaned very little actual knowledge.

....You have to understand what Tom Wolfe was trying to do with his
book. He wasn't writing the authoritative book about the dawn of the
Space Age, he was writing the definitive book about the *myths*
surrounding the dawn of the Space Age. The film is nothing but a
condensed film about the book about the myths, with too much of an
attempt to bogusly portray Gus as a "squirming little hatch blower".
To be honest, Tom Hanks need to do another space docu series, this
time taking "The Right Stuff" and doing the *Real* Stuff.

Reading Alan Shepard's biography shows
me that The Right Stuff is a very sensationalized work.

....Careful here. Make sure it's his official bio, and not "Moon Shot".
Benedict and Barbree's book was complete and utter crap, and it's one
of the rare occasions where the tv version was more accurate than the
book. Someone had a list a few years back of inaccuracies, but since
my archives before 2000 were toasted a while back, I haven't been able
to find it, even on google.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

"OM" wrote in message
...
The film is nothing but a
condensed film about the book about the myths, with too much of an
attempt to bogusly portray Gus as a "squirming little hatch blower".

I don't get that from the movie. Just the opposite, in fact.

The movie isn't about NASA or the astronauts. It's about Real Men doing Real
Men Stuff.

--
"OM" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 02:00:42 -0600, "Jim" wrote:

Just as The Right Stuff said nothing about NASA
it was a book turned into a movie. I read the book, saw the movie, and
gleaned very little actual knowledge.

...You have to understand what Tom Wolfe was trying to do with his
book. He wasn't writing the authoritative book about the dawn of the
Space Age, he was writing the definitive book about the *myths*
surrounding the dawn of the Space Age. The film is nothing but a
condensed film about the book about the myths, with too much of an
attempt to bogusly portray Gus as a "squirming little hatch blower".
To be honest, Tom Hanks need to do another space docu series, this
time taking "The Right Stuff" and doing the *Real* Stuff.

Reading Alan Shepard's biography shows
me that The Right Stuff is a very sensationalized work.

...Careful here. Make sure it's his official bio, and not "Moon Shot".
Benedict and Barbree's book was complete and utter crap, and it's one
of the rare occasions where the tv version was more accurate than the
book. Someone had a list a few years back of inaccuracies, but since
my archives before 2000 were toasted a while back, I haven't been able
to find it, even on google.

OM
No, not Moon Shot,although I have that too, it is the authorized bio. We
just moved, and it is packed away somewhere (moving, big PIA), but it was
the real thing. A very good read BTW. And I understand what you're saying
about Wolfe's book, oddly I didn't realise his real intent. I just thought
he tried a bit too hard to romantize the beggining of the program. Thanks
for the insight.
Jim in Houston
oSpAm
Nurse's creed: Fill what's empty, empty what's full, and scratch where it
itches!!

On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 12:20:42 -0600, "Jim" wrote:

And I understand what you're saying
about Wolfe's book, oddly I didn't realise his real intent. I just thought
he tried a bit too hard to romantize the beggining of the program

....There's really nothing wrong with romaticizing the Glory Days, so
long as you show the good and the bad and the myth in the proper
context. Wolfe came to the wrong conclusion where Gus and LB7 were
concerned, and the film's scriptwriters took the whole thing out of
the wrong context, even though they threw in one oft-missed line about
Gus not getting the White House treatment because JFK was in a Bay of
Pig**** and didn't want his Astronaut pals getting any of it on them
by association.

....However, if you *really* want to read a book that's nothing but
whining, bitching, and nothing but sour grapes from a worthless
pudnocker lacking any Stuff at all, much less the *Right* kind, read
Brian O'Leary's book. It's almost as deplorable as a certain
Challenger conspiracy book written by an ex-Lockheed janitor claiming
ot be an engineer.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 10:21:15 -0500, "Scott Hedrick"
wrote:

"OM" wrote in message
.. .
The film is nothing but a
condensed film about the book about the myths, with too much of an
attempt to bogusly portray Gus as a "squirming little hatch blower".

I don't get that from the movie. Just the opposite, in fact.

....That's because you, like me, are biased by the truth and have no
problems seeing past the facade. The average Joe Punchclock or Ethyl
Soapsjunkie, on the other hand, sees the scene where Gus and Betty
have their fight in the hotel bungalow, and the fact that Gus loses
his cool like that is seen by the clueless as an admission of guilt by
vehement denial. Go figure.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

OM wrote:
...That's because you, like me, are biased by the truth and have no
problems seeing past the facade. The average Joe Punchclock or Ethyl
Soapsjunkie, on the other hand, sees the scene where Gus and Betty
have their fight in the hotel bungalow, and the fact that Gus loses
his cool like that is seen by the clueless as an admission of guilt by
vehement denial. Go figure.


I'd still love to know what caused that; I'm sure Gus didn't blow the
hatch intentionally, and the lack of a bruise on his hand shows he
didn't blow it unintentionally either while moving around in the capsule
and seeking something to grab to move himself around after landing.
When they found the capsule, they stated that the hatch opening appeared
to be deformed by impact... so my best guess is that some impact force
on touchdown led to the hatch setting itself off, in much the same way
the X-15 once started to extend its nose gear at full speed due to heat
expansion on the wire controlling it.
This really needs to be thoroughly investigated to completely clear his
name in regard to the incident, because that's a undeserved spot on his
record.

Pat

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 23:25:14 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

I'd still love to know what caused that; I'm sure Gus didn't blow the
hatch intentionally, and the lack of a bruise on his hand shows he
didn't blow it unintentionally either while moving around in the capsule
and seeking something to grab to move himself around after landing.
When they found the capsule, they stated that the hatch opening appeared
to be deformed by impact... so my best guess is that some impact force
on touchdown led to the hatch setting itself off, in much the same way
the X-15 once started to extend its nose gear at full speed due to heat
expansion on the wire controlling it.

....My own theory is similar. The reentry heat and subsequent rapid
cooling caused by splashdown caused the external firing system - the
one used by the frogmen - to either contract or somehow fire. What
I've never been able to pull up was whether or not this system was
retained for the orbital Mercury versions, or if any modifications
were made after LB7. As for the hatch deformity, I wouldn't be
surprised if that happened due to impact on the bottom of some sort,
or perhaps one of those unseen giant squids got a bit turned on.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

Pat Flannery wrote:

This really needs to be thoroughly investigated to completely
clear his name in regard to the incident, because that's a
undeserved spot on his record.

A convenient shorthand for thorough investigations launched to
completely clear someone's name is "whitewash". Investigations are
not supposed to be launched to confirm existing personal convictions.

Jim Davis