Debunking last week's "Mercury 13" Myths...

The Mercury 13: setting the story straight, by James Oberg
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/869/1

If you liked my article on debunking Mercury-13 myths, you might want to
vote for it
on this reader survey link:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/rea...es/?period=all

On May 14, 8:51 am, "Jim Oberg" wrote:
If you liked my article on debunking Mercury-13 myths, you might want to
vote for it
on this reader survey link:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/rea...es/?period=all

Jim

I agree with almost all of your piece, particularly the part about the
"program" being official being a myth. I thought your quote of JOhn
Glenn was right on the mark.

The one line that took me back a little bit is the paragraph about
relaxing safety standards. I guess (and perhaps you can enlighten) I
would have to do more research into how the proclamation by IKE that
all strows had to be test pilots came into play. I twitch a bit on
the part comparing the relaxation of test pilot standards to say
Challenger or Columbia.

both of those events were flying with a known defect.

I dont know that the case could be made that relaxing the test pilot
standard was a "known defect".

But that is a minor nit on an otherwise fine piece.

Robert

Borderline wrote:

The one line that took me back a little bit is the paragraph about
relaxing safety standards. I guess (and perhaps you can enlighten) I
would have to do more research into how the proclamation by IKE that
all strows had to be test pilots came into play. I twitch a bit on

You've got fast-moving experimental vehicles whizzing through the air
(and beyond). Who *else* do you pick?

That said, of *course* the earliest manned missions had very little
"piloting" required. Up until then, nobody had ever experienced a
prolonged period of freefall [1]. In addition the obvious requirement
for uncrewed tests and then life support system tests [2] meant that
the hardware would already be in place for missions that had total
pilot incapacition as a contingency plan.

Equally obviously, subsequent missions were going to require real
test pilot skills - rendezvous, docking, EVA, etc. Culminating in
Neil Armstrong taking over and making a successful moon landing at
the first ever attempt.

[1] Is that this week's euphemism for zero-G? Can't keep up sometimes.
[2] They should've sent a pig up.

--
"Checking identity papers is a complete waste of time. If anyone can
be counted on to have valid papers, it will be the terrorists".

On May 14, 6:02 pm, Mary Pegg wrote:
Borderline wrote:
The one line that took me back a little bit is the paragraph about
relaxing safety standards. I guess (and perhaps you can enlighten) I
would have to do more research into how the proclamation by IKE that
all strows had to be test pilots came into play. I twitch a bit on

You've got fast-moving experimental vehicles whizzing through the air
(and beyond). Who *else* do you pick?


Hello:

My presumption until proven otherwise out of history that I did not
experience real time is that people doing "real time" stuff make for
the most part, good decisions or more correctly the best decisions
that they can at the time given the data that they have at the time.

I dont know "what" IKE's reasoning was behind the "test pilot"
decision. aka who recommended it what the criteria for decision
making were etc. IKE made a number of reasonable decisions so I am
prepared to say that this was.

My main point to Jim was that I dont think that it would be reasonable
to put that decision or deviation from it in the same league as people/
managers who were deviating from known safety procedures/standards and
observing that were "bad" when they did deviate from them.

Just however in discussion I would answer your question this way (and
of course I am making it with 20/20 hindsight).

Pilots were a good choice, but the main thing of that choice would in
my view be people who 1) were capable of thinking in three dimensions
and 2) understanding the laws of motion and the laws of control in
that particular set of dimensions. Speed/velocity is just the ability
to keep up with the motion in that particular setting.

this coupled with the usual traits of reason, being able to remain
cool under pressure, not having what I call "Bastille moments" (ie
ones where ones whole self control comes apart) si more or less what
one is looking for.

I believe that the decision to "go" with high performance test pilots
was a valid one. I can also see where the thought process went as to
"going" with what were percieved as the "very best" at the place the
"very best" were perceived to be. That, more then sexism was what
scotched "women" into the program.

As I told someone else here, it was the ability of folks like Cooper
to "keep singing" when the automatic stuff stopped that got at least
one of the capsules back. Had the effort been different then they
might have wanted to bulk up the auto system and that might have been
mass that they didnt have.

Having said all that I believe that the odds would have been pretty
good that a couple of the women could have been trained to acceptable
standards and completed the mission successfully. But that is with
the great 20/really good hindsight.

One final point...in retrospect however it is clear that "supersonic
jet fighters" are not all that big a gate for a shuttle crewperson and
that includes the folks who drive it.

But that is another thread and it has already been solved (grin)

Robert

"Mary Pegg" wrote in message
...
You've got fast-moving experimental vehicles whizzing through the air
(and beyond). Who *else* do you pick?

That's the fundamental problem with revisionist history. It takes *today's*
knowledge and assumes that folks back whenever had that same knowledge
available. We know *now* that the human body can handle spaceflight and how
to train folks for spaceflight. We didn't know *then*, so it made sense to
assume the worst and get the best trained and physically fit folks
available. It helped to have a continuous medical record, which, being in
the military, the candidates were able to produce.

None of the "Mercury 13" were qualified by the official standards *then*,
standards which had been set years prior, and *NOT* by NASA. No amount of
revisionist history will change that. It's very likely that, barring the
requirement of being a military test pilot, most of those women would have
qualified physically and mentally, *but that data was not available at the
time*.

Anyone who claims those women were "cheated" by NASA is *lying*. They were
never qualified to fly because they were not military test pilots, period.

I've also not seen any evidence that *NASA* was ever involved with them. A
NASA *contractor*, without authorization, perhaps, but just because Lovelace
was the clinic for NASA hardly means that everything Lovelace did was for
NASA.

The True Believers, however, don't need the facts. It's Liberty Valence for
them.

Equally obviously, subsequent missions were going to require real
test pilot skills - rendezvous, docking, EVA, etc. Culminating in
Neil Armstrong taking over and making a successful moon landing at
the first ever attempt.

[2] They should've sent a pig up.

They sent up a chimp first. "Ham" IIRC. This was just before Russia
flew Yuri. I might think that the Russians, seeing that our chimp
survived a space trip, decided that there wasn't some deadly radiation
or such unknown yet problem that would make a human sick in the short
term in orbit, and sent Yuri up.

I vaguely remember seeing in a TV show, probably "I dream of Genie", a
brief mention of a group of women astronauts in training. I doubt that
the writers of that show actually knew of the Mercury 13, but just made
it up, probably as a plot device for Genie to try to become an astronaut
herself...

Borderline wrote:

On May 14, 6:02 pm, Mary Pegg wrote:
Borderline wrote:

You've got fast-moving experimental vehicles whizzing through the air
(and beyond). Who *else* do you pick?

Hello:

Evenin'.

snip

Pilots were a good choice, but the main thing of that choice would in

Got a better one?

my view be people who 1) were capable of thinking in three dimensions
and 2) understanding the laws of motion and the laws of control in
that particular set of dimensions. Speed/velocity is just the ability
to keep up with the motion in that particular setting.

Circus performers...

this coupled with the usual traits of reason, being able to remain
cool under pressure, not having what I call "Bastille moments" (ie
ones where ones whole self control comes apart) si more or less what
one is looking for.

No, definitely not circus performers. They're all completely barking.

Having said all that I believe that the odds would have been pretty
good that a couple of the women could have been trained to acceptable
standards and completed the mission successfully.

Has *anybody* here claimed otherwise? (Except to say "all of them").

--
"Checking identity papers is a complete waste of time. If anyone can
be counted on to have valid papers, it will be the terrorists".

robert casey wrote:


[2] They should've sent a pig up.

They sent up a chimp first. "Ham" IIRC. This was just before Russia

Ham was far from the first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animals_in_space

flew Yuri. I might think that the Russians, seeing that our chimp
survived a space trip, decided that there wasn't some deadly radiation
or such unknown yet problem that would make a human sick in the short
term in orbit, and sent Yuri up.

You might think that. I might think that they had their own data,
based on their own choice of space mammal.

--
"Checking identity papers is a complete waste of time. If anyone can
be counted on to have valid papers, it will be the terrorists".

Borderline wrote:

:
:I dont know "what" IKE's reasoning was behind the "test pilot"
:decision. aka who recommended it what the criteria for decision
:making were etc. IKE made a number of reasonable decisions so I am
repared to say that this was.
:

There is one other potential contributing reason that most folks don't
like to consider.

We were already killing a lot of test pilots with regular airplanes.
Should something go wrong, there would be a lot less public outcry
than there would should some woman or teacher or some such get
waxed...


--
"The way of the samurai is found in death. If by setting one's heart
right every morning and evening, one is able to live as though his
body were already dead, he gains freedom in The Way. His whole life
will be without blame, and he will succeed in his calling."
-- "Hagakure Kikigaki", Yamamoto Tsunetomo