|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
"Ami Silberman" wrote in message ...
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message om... Hey, folks--I wasn't sure where to post this one because there's been so much blathering, but how about this for a question: You do realize the first three groups of astronauts were recruited from within the military, and by that I mean they received orders to show up at such-and-so place at such-and-so time with absolutely no clue why they were there? I thought that they had to apply first, and then the candidates received the orders. I'll ignore Scott Hedrick's "Shhh" comment. You are incorrect, AMI. Try talking to one of the families involved (I HAVE.) There were no applications in the initial groups. They were given orders to appear at such-and-so place at such-and-so time, and when they arrived, THEN they were told why they were there. Gus Grissom had NO IDEA why he was being "summoned" until he arrived. Don't believe me? Oberg acts like he knows everything about the space program; perhaps he could call Jim Lovell and ask him (a man who by all accounts could well have been among the original "Mercury Seven" if it had not been for a certain person's "strings" that he pulled--Oh, hell, why not say it? John Glenn. Had it not been for Johnny, Jim Lovell WOULD have been the Mercury "Seventh.") LaDonna |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message om... Try talking to one of the families involved (I HAVE.) Then you should have no problem providing the names of the people you talked to about this. Don't believe me? Why should we? More to the point, if you've done your homework, you wouldn't expect us to believe you- you've be providing the verifiable evidence. Oberg acts like he knows everything about the space program He's demonstrated that he knows a great deal more about it than you do. More importantly, he doesn't expect us to believe him, he provides *detailed, relevant, verifiable references* to support his claims. Where are yours? How often has, say, CNN or MSNBC called you for comment on space matters? Had it not been for Johnny, Jim Lovell WOULD have been the Mercury "Seventh.") You'd do well to provide evidence for the legion of unsupported claims you've already made before adding yet another one. Got any documentation on *this* claim, especially considering how it conflicts with the verifiably documented evidence that shows that there were only supposed to be six in the original class, but that the candidates they selected were so superior that they could not eliminate the seventh? |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
From Peter Stickney:
In article Ryczc.714922$Pk3.101441@pd7tw1no, Dave Michelson writes: Mary Shafer wrote: The X-15 was an NACA/NASA project that the USAF participated in. It was never a USAF project. Instead it was always a joint NASA/USAF project, except early on when it was an NACA/USAF project. Actually, it was a joint NASA/USAF/USN project, although the USAF took a much larger and more visible role. And it was a strictly NACA project until July 1954, when the services signed on :-) In fact, the first ever U.S. (preliminary) astronaut selection was announced in a USAF briefing concerning MISS on 25 June 1958. The list included test pilots Robert Walker, Scott Crossfield, Neil Armstrong, Robert Rushworth, William Bridgeman, Alvin White, Iven Kincheloe, Robert White, and Jack McKay. I fail to see how the projection of names on a slide constitutes an announcement of a preliminary astronaut selection. I suggest the possibility that these names were used as mere placeholders for some future selection. The people being briefed needed to pin down an anthropomorphic design point that would scale the capsule design which would then drive the choice of boosters. (For all I know, the "selection" was accomplished by an airman one-striper who had been ordered to cull names from a list of test pilots so that the graph could be made.) Here is a pertinent quote: "On June 25 and 26, the ARPA Man in Space Panel sponsored a meeting in Washington for representatives from Headquarters ARDC, the Ballistic Missile Division, Convair, Lockheed, Space Technology Laboratories, and NACA. The meeting was called to resolve such outstanding questions as the relationship between payload weight and the lifting capabilities of various booster systems, booster reliability, and ablation versus heat sink thermal protection techniques. The gathering produced little specific technical agreement." (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...4201/ch4-4.htm) Scotty, Neil, and Jack were civilians, not military. So was Bill Bridgeman, who was a Company Test Pilot for Douglas. Who said they were military? BTW, mention of this "preliminary selection" is mentioned in, among other places, NASM Air & Space Magazine http://www.airspacemag.com/asm/mag/i.../AS/First.html I'm glad to see that the Smithsonian refuses to take the leap of calling this slide an astronaut selection - preliminary, or any other type. Compare to www.astronautix.com/flights/manonest.htm - "This was the first preliminary astronaut selection in history." I've seen absolutely no authority to back that up. Perhaps Mark Wade is privy to information that the Smithsonian doesn't have access to. Until I see further evidence, I will weight the significance of that list the same way NASM did: "On this particular summer day, to this particular briefer, these nine guys seemed most likely to become the first people in orbit." ....or even *less so*. After all, I cannot even see the grounds for Tony Reichhardt to conclude that the briefer (or whoever made that slide) chose those individuals for any other reason than to provide a spectrum of heights and weights for the benefit of the booster engineers in the audience. Here is the exact quote from Reichhardt's NASM article: The briefing chart, once stamped "SECRET" but now turning yellow in a NASA archive, shows a smooth curve with the names of nine test pilots plotted according to their weights. At the lower end, between 150 and 175 pounds, are Bob Walker, Scott Crossfield, Neil Armstrong, and Robert Rushworth. Sloping from there up to 200 pounds, straining the limit of how much human payload an Atlas rocket could lift into space, are Bill Bridgeman, Alvin White, Iven Kincheloe, Bob White, and Jack McKay. The top of the chart reads "CREWMAN AVAILABILITY." Going by this, it seems to be a misinterpretation to read -crewman availability- as stating, "Here is my preliminary selection." It's a long way from -availability- to -selection-. It seems more likely that the presenter intended to communicate something more along the lines of, "Here is the spectrum of sandbags you have to plug into your capsule. Now go design the rocket." ~ CT |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
La Douchebag quiffed:
Had it not been for Johnny, Jim Lovell WOULD have been the Mercury "Seventh.") ....This is complete and utter bull****. The reasons Lovell was passed over by the Lovelace "doctors" during the testing & evaluation program was not politics or any other sinister reason you may have concocted in your sick, perverted mind. During testing, Lovell was found to have a higher than acceptable level of billirubin that was due to a very minor liver condition. While current medicine knows this condition has virtually no effect upon bodily functions save a slighly higher propensity for upset stomach after eating extremely spicy food - particularly Pe-Te's - at the time the Lovelace quacks had established certain endocrinial levels and Lovell exceeded them to the point that he was certified unfit on that ground and that ground alone. In fact, it's generally accepted, based on what reports have been released regarding the Lovelace Clinic tests, that had the original call for 12 Astronauts instead of 7, there would have been less pressure to adhere to the bilirubin max allowed level, and Jim Lovell would have been one of the Original 12. ....Now, to be fair, had you said Pete Conrad, then you would have been a bit more accurate. As we now know, the primary reason Conrad was not one of the Original 7 was that he, more than any other candidate who met the qualifications at an equal or greater level than those chosen, also was the one who rebelled against some of the insane tests and other tortures the Lovelace program inflicted on the candidates. His being passed over was 100% politically motivated, and was just as logical, rational, and just a decision as it was for you to go on your current vendetta and ruin this group in the name of scott grissom. You wouldn't happen to be related to Randy Lovelace, would you? OM -- "No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
From Ami Silberman:
"Stuf4" wrote From Ami Silberman: "LaDonna Wyss" wrote "Ami Silberman" wrote in message ... No, a NASA operation. Even "stuffy" wouldn't argue that it was a military operation. AS-204 was not under military command or control. It did involve several military personnel as flight crew. So an active duty military crew commander does not qualify as placing AS-204 under military command? I expect that Gus would not have agreed to that statement (let alone Gus's boss, active duty Air Force General Sam Phillips). I don't have time to actually go and look at the relevant FMs, but AS-204 was not under Phillips operational comman in the traditional military sense. He was neither the Director of Flight Operations, nor anywhere else in the direct operational chain above them (IIRC). Gus's boss would have been Slayton, anyway. One of Gus's bosses had the initials J-F-K. He was Gus's commander in chief. Sure, neither Sam Phillips nor JFK was Gus's immediate boss. But they both had command authority over Gus. Had Gus violated an order from Sam Phillips, he would have been subject to UCMJ punishment. The proceeding would have cited how an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel violated the lawful orders of an Air Force Lieutenant General. ....and all of this is beside the point I was making in my previous post above. You stated that AS-204 was not under military command or control. And then you follow that up by acknowledging the fact that the flight crew was military (I would note that it was not only "several", but *all*). My point was that a military crew operating a vehicle *is* military command and control. Gus was the military commander over his military crew. If you care to stretch your imagination to the extreme here... A fiction writer could conjur up a story of how such a military crew was in receipt of secret orders to take manual control of their Saturn V and fly it on a kamikazee mission straight into Red Square as the lead salvo of an all-out first strike of the entire US arsenal of ICBMs, SLBMs and B-52s. A wild example of a military crew exerting military command and control. Now back to the real world... A subtle example of a military crew exerting military command and control: Gus: Hey Ed, pass me that flashlight. Ed: Here you go, Gus. ~ CT |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
"OM" om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org wrote in message ... You wouldn't happen to be related to Randy Lovelace, would you? Nah, she only gets Randy around Betty... |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 00:36:44 -0400, "Scott Hedrick"
wrote: "OM" om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org wrote in message ... You wouldn't happen to be related to Randy Lovelace, would you? Nah, she only gets Randy around Betty... [GROAN]...Scott, that was bad. Even worse than what I've been accused of. Just for that, I'm sending you to Killfile Hell for 15 minutes, young man! mini-plonk OM -- "No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message . ..
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message om... Try talking to one of the families involved (I HAVE.) Then you should have no problem providing the names of the people you talked to about this. Don't believe me? Why should we? More to the point, if you've done your homework, you wouldn't expect us to believe you- you've be providing the verifiable evidence. Oberg acts like he knows everything about the space program He's demonstrated that he knows a great deal more about it than you do. More importantly, he doesn't expect us to believe him, he provides *detailed, relevant, verifiable references* to support his claims. Where are yours? How often has, say, CNN or MSNBC called you for comment on space matters? Had it not been for Johnny, Jim Lovell WOULD have been the Mercury "Seventh.") You'd do well to provide evidence for the legion of unsupported claims you've already made before adding yet another one. Got any documentation on *this* claim, especially considering how it conflicts with the verifiably documented evidence that shows that there were only supposed to be six in the original class, but that the candidates they selected were so superior that they could not eliminate the seventh? Well, given the fact that the "seventh" basically bought his way in, and given the fact that NO ONE who flew with him for NASA would argue for an instant he was NO astronaut (that part of Tom Wolfe's story was dead-on), and given the fact that Lovell came within a hair of making the cut for the Mercury 7, what part of the math does not add up for you? Need to know where to find Captain Lovell to ask him? Try the Astronaut Scholarship Foundation. I have his email address if you need it. LaDonna |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sky & Telescope's News Bulletin - Mar 19 | Stuart Goldman | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | March 20th 04 03:20 AM |
Good news and bad about Mars rover... | Steven James Forsberg | Policy | 2 | January 26th 04 11:12 AM |
Sky & Telescope's News Bulletin - Jan 9 | Stuart Goldman | Amateur Astronomy | 12 | January 10th 04 02:34 AM |
Sky & Telescope's News Bulletin - Sep 12 | Stuart Goldman | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 13th 03 02:45 AM |
news flash! Rutan drops the shapceship! | Rand Simberg | Policy | 3 | August 8th 03 11:14 PM |