collectSPACE: Messages - Reply to Topic

Space News
space history and artifacts articles

Messages
space history discussion forums

Sightings
worldwide astronaut appearances

Resources
selected space history documents

Forum:	Space Explorers & Workers
Topic:	Honoring space workers versus crew members

Want to register?

Who Can Post?	Any registered users may post a reply.
About Registration	You must be registered in order to post a topic or reply in this forum.
Your UserName:
Your Password:	Forget your password?
Your Reply: HTML is ON UBB Code is ON Smilies Legend	[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Dixon: [B]Same might well have been said for the Apollo 13 patch. Mind you, the Apollo 11 crew got it right in my opinion. Just think the principle of honouring "everyone" is misguided.[/B][/QUOTE]
Options	Disable Smilies in This Post. Show Signature: include your profile signature. Only registered users may have signatures.
*If HTML and/or UBB Code are enabled, this means you can use HTML and/or UBB Code in your message.

If you have previously registered, but forgotten your password, click here.

<table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 width="600"><TR><td bgcolor="#000000"><TABLE BORDER=0 cellpadding=4 border=0 cellspacing=1 WIDTH="100%"><TR bgcolor="#660000"><TD COLSPAN=2><CENTER>T O P I C     R E V I E W</CENTER></TD></TR><TR bgcolor="#494949"><TD valign=top>moorouge</TD><TD>Carl Sagan, in his book "Pale Blue Dot," suggests that when it comes to exploration the wrong people are venerated. As an example he cites the 1492 voyage of Columbus where history records in detail the exploits of the crews of the Santa Maria, the Nina and the Pinta but almost nothing is known about the builders of those vessels without whose skill and expertise the voyage would have been impossible.This set me wondering if in recording the history of Apollo we make the same mistake as was made over five hundred years ago. Today we know in great detail what the astronauts did, But are we making heroes of the wrong people? The crews of the Apollo spacecraft were merely putting to use the vehicles given them. Their task, as in the days of Columbus, would have been impossible without the thousands of unnamed and unhonoured workers, men and women, who built the tools that enabled us to visit the moon. On their shoulders rests the success of Apollo and it is they who should be honoured.For example who was the lady that knitted the computer that landed Eagle on the moon? Who poured the goo that was moulded into the heat shield of Columbia? Are their names, like the builders of the Santa Maria to be lost forever in the mists of history?So, who should have appeared on postage stamps, bank notes and medals rather than the astronauts?</TD></TR><TR bgcolor="#333333"><TD valign=top>SpaceAholic</TD><TD>Your statement presumes that many of the supporting cast were not honored. However the distinction for crew members is personal risk exposure. </TD></TR><TR bgcolor="#494949"><TD valign=top>Mike Dixon</TD><TD>Overstating it doesn't come close. Where does the honour list finish?</TD></TR><TR bgcolor="#333333"><TD valign=top>oly</TD><TD>I do not believe that there is a case to be made that the people involved in designing, building or in any way participating in the early space industry have been overlooked. Sites like collectSPACE and others help to recognise individuals, teams, towns, companies and areas that in some way, large or small, were involved in getting a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth.The oral history site has more interviews with others involved in the early programs than it does with astronauts and many of the astronauts themselves state that the programs could not happen without the people who built the ships and Neil Armstrong stated many times he was part of a team.The astronauts were the ones taking the risk, just like the early sailors or other adventurers. The Saturn visitors centre exhibt at Kennedy Space Center is a dedication to the program, as is the National Air and Space Museum exhibits and others. The Astronaut Hall of Fame was more centred on the individuals who flew. Interviews with the three astronauts of Apollo 13 identify it was a team effort to get them home.For these reasons I believe that NASA and Americans have done a great job identifying that the space race was a team effort and have ensured that everyone involved are remembered as making it a team effort. It would be rather hard to build a statue of 400,000 people.</TD></TR><TR bgcolor="#494949"><TD valign=top>Mike_The_First</TD><TD> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by moorouge: Today we know in great detail what the astronauts did, But are we making heroes of the wrong people?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not — whether or not you are is something that you'd need to decide for yourself. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The crews of the Apollo spacecraft were merely putting to use the vehicles given them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Merely?Yes, they did their jobs within the confines of boundaries designed and set forth by other people. For that matter, so did the people you listed as examples below. Why do you feel them worthy of veneration for that act, but denigrate the astronauts to "merely"? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Their task, as in the days of Columbus, would have been impossible without the thousands of unnamed and unhonoured workers, men and women, who built the tools that enabled us to visit the moon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, and without the astronauts willing to make the trip at great personal risk, the role of those workers would have been to design and build something that never left the ground and was, if anything, a footnote in history. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>On their shoulders rests the success of Apollo and it is they who should be honoured.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again, you're correct: no workers, engineers, manufacturers equals no Apollo. But, again, you're missing: no Apollo astronauts equals no Apollo. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>For example who was the lady that knitted the computer that landed Eagle on the moon? Who poured the goo that was moulded into the heat shield of Columbia? Are their names, like the builders of the Santa Maria to be lost forever in the mists of history?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's odd, as I mentioned, that you're choosing people who were using materials built and designed by someone else, as well as plans created by someone else, as people who should be honored, while, at the same time, advocating against the astronauts for their similar (yet much larger) role. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>So, who should have appeared on postage stamps, bank notes and medals rather than the astronauts?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Rather than?If you said "in addition to," I could help you out there, but "rather than"? You're on your own with that one.Look, I get where you're coming from. Making the astronauts the public face of the program was a PR move. They were clean-cut, mostly military, men, generally with an all-American type family. They made great symbols, and NASA PR knew it.So the amount of publicity they received wasn't necessarily proportional to their work compared to the others involved. That is a statement I would've agreed with — it's a statement a lot of the astronauts themselves would agree with, as it's one they've made. It was no less than a team effort.But that team included the astronauts. I would imagine that it's quite debatable as to whether or not they were the most important part — but, if they weren't, they were pretty close to the top and weren't the least bit expendable.Nobody will ever know the names of everyone involved, especially to the levels of minutiae that you're discussing here. It's hard enough to find information on Mission Control backroomers, let alone the name of the specific individual responsible for making a purchase order for the electrical wiring for the CM. There's also some debate about whether or not the people whose names are mostly unknown actually had anything to do with the space program in the first place (e.g. Dolores Black).If you ever manage to find out who these people are, by all means, feel free to honor them as you see fit. But I would ask that you keep it in perspective.Also keep in mind that a lot of those people probably won't want to be "honored". Astronauts knew what they were signing up for when they signed up. Being the public face of the program was part of their deal. The people you're talking about didn't. They signed on to do a job, which they did, and that was that. From personal experience, I can assure you that a good number of them didn't see themselves or their work as being of that much importance.</TD></TR><TR bgcolor="#333333"><TD valign=top>moorouge</TD><TD>First off, let's be clear – I was floating an observation made by Carl Sagan. It's him you're taking on – not me. This said, I think that you're missing the point that Carl Sagan was trying to make though perhaps I clouded the issue by substituting his word "venerated" by the use of the synonym "honoured." Sagan was saying that those who actually built the Apollo spacecraft deserve to be recognised at the same level as those who actually flew them. Perhaps more so.To quote directly from his book: <BLOCKQUOTE>These spacecraft, their designers, builders, navigators and controllers are examples of what science and engineering, set free for well-defined peaceful purposes can accomplish. Those scientists and engineers should be role models for an American seeking excellence and international competitiveness. They should be on our stamps.</BLOCKQUOTE> I'm happy to stand shoulder to shoulder with Carl. I do agree with his assertion that the backroom boys did not and do not receive the recognition they deserve when compared to the astronauts.</TD></TR><TR bgcolor="#494949"><TD valign=top>Mike Dixon</TD><TD>Could not agree less.</TD></TR><TR bgcolor="#333333"><TD valign=top>Mike_The_First</TD><TD> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by moorouge: First off, let’s be clear – I was floating an observation made by Carl Sagan. It’s him you’re taking on – not me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Let's be more clear. Unless there's a lot more than the cited passage you extrapolated quite a bit.I don't inherently disagree with what he said in that quote. I still, however, disagree with you.There are stamps that bear the likenesses of Goddard and von Braun. They aren't undeserving. However, neither are the astronauts. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>This said, I think that you’re missing the point that Carl Sagan was trying to make though perhaps I clouded the issue by substituting his word "venerated" by the use of the synonym "honoured."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Every word I've said still holds if you switch to "venerated." <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Sagan was saying that those who actually built the Apollo spacecraft deserve to be recognised at the same level as those who actually flew them. Perhaps more so.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again, unless he had more to say on this subject, you're extrapolating here. The engineers who made everything possible deserve recognition. Likely even more than they've received. More than the astronauts themselves, however...Another point that you're missing is that the astronauts helped design these systems; they didn't just sit around waiting for someone else to do it. Many of them, in addition to having military backgrounds, were engineers. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I do agree with his assertion that the backroom boys did not and do not receive the recognition they deserve when compared to the astronauts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would suggest cutting the last five words. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Mike Dixon: Could not agree less.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Care to elaborate?</TD></TR><TR bgcolor="#494949"><TD valign=top>Mike Dixon</TD><TD>With the Moorouge post, not yours. Assumed that was apparent.</TD></TR><TR bgcolor="#333333"><TD valign=top>1202 Alarm</TD><TD> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by moorouge: Sagan was saying that those who actually built the Apollo spacecraft deserve to be recognised at the same level as those who actually flew them. Perhaps more so.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Really? Sagan added "perhaps more so"? That's your own two cents, and that's completely changing his assertion...Like your "making heroes of the wrong people." Can't you make your point of giving the workers more credit without bringing down the astronauts?</TD></TR><TR bgcolor="#494949"><TD valign=top>moorouge</TD><TD>Interesting. The responses so far have been very much what I would expect them to be. So, I wonder what will be made of this further quote from the "Pale Blue Dot" and his question about the importance of astronauts in the grand scheme of things. <BLOCKQUOTE>A key issue facing the future of NASA... is whether the purported justifications for human spaceflight are coherent and sustainable. Is it worth the cost?</BLOCKQUOTE> Sagan provides an answer, with reservations, towards the end of his book, but how would you answer his question?</TD></TR><TR bgcolor="#333333"><TD valign=top>Robert Pearlman</TD><TD>It is not a secret that Sagan was more in favor of robotic exploration than he was an advocate for human spaceflight. Later in his life though, he warmed to the value of sending crews to space and by the time he wrote "Pale Blue Dot," he saw Apollo's greatest gift as its ability to inspire our collective imaginations and keep humanity focused on positive endeavors (as opposed to conflicts).Perhaps I have forgotten the passage, but I do no recall Sagan drawing direct parallels between the overall value of human spaceflight and to whom the credit for the activity is given and/or deserved. <center><iframe width="400" height="225" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8Xtly-dpBeA?rel=0&showinfo=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>

Cozmosis22

In this 1969 Walter Cronkite interview during the Apollo 11 moon landing, authors Robert Heinlein and Arthur C. Clarke explain why human exploration is not only preferable, but imperative.

Regarding the many scientists, engineers and machinists who produced the space travel hardware; they knew that there would be no glory in their work but they did their jobs to the best of their abilities nonetheless. The success of the missions, the accolades of their fellow private sector employees and the many thanks from various NASA personnel was their joy.

Sy Liebergot

I'm sure that many of you are familiar with the 1989 Cox/Murray book, "Apollo: Race To The Moon."

onesmallstep

Sy, great to hear from someone who "was there" and can speak with some authority on this subject! Yes, the Murray/Cox book is excellent and is required reading for anyone interested in space (especially Apollo) history. Also, the books in the U of Nebraska Outward Odyssey series are rightly called a "people's history," chronicling the many voices in space exploration.

This has been quite an interesting discussion as to who should be "honored," "remembered," and yes, even "venerated." So often opinions and tastes change over time, as does the people/events/locations we as humans choose to commemorate (even deify). Recent events serve as an example of the perils of sometimes doing so much (or too little) in honoring people and events in the past.

It comes as no surprise that it took fifty and thirty years, respectively, to properly honor the Apollo 1 and Challenger crews for their sacrifice. Columbia was the more recent and freshest in people's memory. The families' sentiments and more importantly the passage of time has offered a better perspective on these tragic events in space history.

I remember clearly the two pad workers who were killed before STS-1 due to noxious fumes; sadly I don't recall their names but I'm sure their families and former co-workers do. It's events like this that show that the other, less well-known people in the space program sometimes give their all too.

I'm reminded of small things that can serve to honor the people in the 'back room' during important events in aerospace history; the signatures inside the engine cowling of the Ryan workers who built Lindbergh's Spirit of St. Louis, to the naming of buildings, streets and schools. Of course, you cannot honor everyone in this way.

As far as honoring and remembering the support personnel; the engineers, space workers etc. who contributed to the US space program's successes since Mercury days. I'm sure they (and their immediate family) know of their great work, but would perhaps leave it at that: No great statues, pronouncements etc. Just the knowledge that they participated in something special in human history, and pride in the current generation of aerospace workers carrying on in their tradition.

moorouge

A thoughful, considered response that is much appreciated. Thank you.

I wonder if you have any comments to make on my second query. Do you consider that the purported justifications for human spaceflight are coherent and sustainable today? Or are there other factors that need to be considered?

RobertB

Just adding a comment by someone who, more than most, has an interest in this subject:

...the Apollo 11 crew was given the task of designing its mission patch... After some discussion the crew decided to keep their names off the patch. Michael Collins explains: "We wanted to keep our three names off it because we wanted the design to be representative of everyone who had worked toward a lunar landing, and there were thousands who could take a proprietary interest in it, yet who would never see their names woven into the fabric of a patch."

Mike Dixon

Same might well have been said for the Apollo 13 patch. Mind you, the Apollo 11 crew got it right in my opinion. Just think the principle of honouring "everyone" is misguided.

ApolloChick

A reminder: the American Space Museum & Space Walk of Fame in Titusville, Florida was established to specifically honor and remember the space "workers." The Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and Space Shuttle Monuments in Space View Park have engravings of the names of space workers from various NASA centers and contractors throughout the United States.

There is also a special dedication "In the Line of Duty" that lists the names of those whose lives were lost at the Cape Complex... including Forrest Cole and Nick Mullon (mentioned in an earlier post) who died on March 19, 1981, in the gaseous nitrogen accident.

If interested, more info including the names on the monuments are listed on the museum's website under Space View Park.

moorouge

It is gratifying to note that there is one place where the contribution made to Apollo by those whose efforts are largely unrecorded is recognised. Nevertheless, it would seem that the consensus of contributors to this thread is that all the Apollo workers were equal but that a few were a lot more equal than others.

This said, I am a little perplexed that nobody advocating the greater equality of the few has offered an answer to Sagan’s second question – are the purported justifications for human spaceflight coherent and sustainable today?

Apart from the two video clips from forty years ago there would seem to be little offered to justify the expense of continuing to send the ‘more equal than others’ into space. This begs two further questions.

Are the reasons offered to justify human spaceflight offered in the video clips sustainable in today’s political climate? And second, is this lack of enthusiasm to argue for adequate funding by those who profess to be keen on human spaceflight on this forum typical and therefore a reason why adequate Government funding is not forthcoming and greater reliance being placed on private funds?

moorouge

It's early days to expect a response to my last post, but those pondering on their replies might like to consider these extra items.

The first is taken from a poll by Monmouth University on the 53rd anniversary of John Glenn's flight:

However, less than half the public supports spending billions of dollars specifically to send astronauts back to the moon or to other planets - a program that is currently in the works at NASA.

This second is a comment made by a Keith Cowing on the result of the poll:

If space advocates have all of the impact that they claim to have had over the past several decades then they need to share the blame for the dysfunctional way that this nation's space policy (such that there is one) has been formulated and implemented. If the space advocates shun responsibility for this train wreck then they are admitting that they actually have little or no impact after all. Either way, given how screwed up America's space policy is, one would have to come to the conclusion that space advocates are part of the problem - not the solution.

I'm not saying I agree with either statement but I am interested in how to respond to both Sagan's question and how to provide a reasoned argument for manned missions in today's political climate.

Robert Pearlman

I think you're trying too hard to force a connection between the original focus of this thread, spreading the credit for human spaceflight, and the question of the value of human spaceflight itself.

The latter has been debated for decades, on this forum and elsewhere, by enthusiasts, pundits, authors, historians and more. I am pretty sure it has been an AP History (high school) exam essay question, too.

The truth is, the answer is superfluous. Human spaceflight is going to go forward, or not go forward, for different reasons based on the motivations of the day. Private companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin, for example, don't need space advocates', elected officials' or pundits' support: they only need customers.

SpaceX wasn't planning to send any astronauts to circle the moon until a customer asked them to do it and had the money to fund it. That flight is going forward (based on last update) because they want to do it. No other justification is needed.

The astronauts and cosmonauts continue to fly to the International Space Station because the nations' involved have vested interests. Some of that is literal — they've invested billions on the construction of the station, so they use it. But they also believe there is an value to the science being conducted on board and see benefits on the ground that emerge as a result of the partnership.

There is also a good deal of prestige that goes along with having your own astronaut corps. See Malaysia, South Korea, or for that matter China, Japan and Canada.

No amount of anyone opining that human spaceflight is or is not worth the investment matters. It's all talk. The missions continue because those involved want them to continue.

Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts