posted 05-10-2004 01:57 PM               

"I do not need to refer to [the book]. I have also read Chris Kraft's book, Schirra's autobiography, Cooper's autobiography, etc. . . . Kraft certainly indicates (if memory serves without the book here) that the panel had five clear choices and two tied for the final sixth slot, so they took seven, rather than six astronaut trainees and Carpenter was one of the last two."

This urban legend appears in a number of space memoirs--always without citation or authority. I repeat it here: "the panel had five clear choices and two tied for the final sixth slot, so they took seven. . . ."

This particular and erroneous factoid may have its origins in NASA's initial proposal for "Project Astronaut"--a proposal rejected by Eisenhower the fall of 1958.
See the official history of Project Mercury, THIS NEW OCEAN, chap. 5.

I quote it below:

"Preliminary procedures for pilot selection had been worked out by the aeromedical consultants attached to the Space Task Group at Langley during November [1958]. Their plan called for a meeting with representatives from [civilian] industry and the [military] services to nominate a pool of 150 men from which 36 candidates would be selected for physical and psychological testing. From this group 12 would be chosen to go through a nine-month training and qualification program, after which six finally would be expected to qualify.5l/"

But in December 1958 Eisenhower ordered, instead, a top-secret invitation only to jet-qualified MILITARY pilots. (The first proposal, incidentally, would have placed civilian Neal Armstrong in the pool of eligible candidates.)

So, to sum up, the figure of "six" men being "expected to qualify" grew out of early assumptions about how the NASA Working Group of human factors experts might proceed. They expected to identify (1) 150 candidates; (2) 36 candidates would be chosen for physical and psych testing; (3) 12 would be selected for training; and (4) half of these candidates--six men--"finally would be expected to qualify." Number of Mercury flights was then unspecified.

Kraft may have -heard- about the initial human factors proposal, and then, forty years later in writing his memoirs, elaborated sloppily on misremembered and rejected proposals to insinuate unflattering things about astronauts he disliked.

As it happens, Eisenhower's decision made the selection process slightly different from the one first anticipated: (1) 110 pilots were eligible on paper; (2) 69 were interviewed and psych tested at the Pentagon; (3) 32 were selected for further testing; (4) 18 were recommended "without medical reservation"; and (5) seven were selected.

There was no nonsense, at the end, as Kraft's account suggests, about whether to choose "six or seven" astronauts. It was rather the opposite. The Selection Committee was overwhelmed by the human talent knocking at its door. The committee felt it HAD to have these seven men. There was no dithering and no compromise at the end, only hard decisions about choosing the best men who together would make the best team. This according to surviving members of the Working Group.

posted 05-10-2004 02:23 PM               

The final clause of your post suggests an source for your position, but without any authoirty cited. What surviving members of the working group are you refering to? Where were these statements made, written or recorded.

As to continuing use of the statement, true or not, Neal Thompson's book on Alan Shepard repeats the statement that seven were taken for the anticipated six slots at p. 165.

posted 05-10-2004 02:37 PM               

Lets also recall Kraft was at best, a difficult man during his career and carried many grudges. Many he never got over. I know one man who refused to go to his booksigning, from the Apollo era, that went to Kranz's with me.

But given it is sketchy memory on Kraft's part, Schirra's book and others use various forms of "research and memory" to come to these conclusions.

Kris, I think your Dad well deserved the flight - was well qualified for it - did well on it and suffered for one mans temper. Irrespective of the selection process.

Just my humble opinion.

Cheers,

posted 05-10-2004 02:52 PM               

To Al's remarks, ditto, ditto and double ditto.

posted 05-10-2004 03:40 PM               

With Al's less than subtle assistance, there is no question that you have spoken to more than a few people with meanignful information. What they said, why they said it and the extent of their memory or knowledge remains unknown. Your post, however, did nothing to correct the issue. While it provides a very plausible basis for showing a potential source for the number of 6, it does not indicate a reason to believe anyone ever shifted from that target number. After President Eisenhower's order, the target pool was known, but did that change the anticipated number of pilots to be taken? Your statement that "[t]he committee felt it HAD to have these seven men. There was no dithering and no compromise at the end, only hard decisions about choosing the best men who together would make the best team," actually supports the statement that they were looking for the top six and simply found that they could not eliminate one and so took seven. As was discussed before, who ranked where is unknown.

As to accuracy of statements and memories, I have yet to read an autobiography, biography or history of the early space program that does not have a few statements that contradict or are at odds with another book. As I noted before, "Flight" raised a number of issues about the Aurora 7 mission and "For Spacious Skies" pretty much addressed each of those points. Was there an element of bias in Kraft's book; undoubtably. Was there an element of bias in your response; it certainly seems so ("elaborated sloppily on misremembered and rejected proposals to insinuate unflattering things about astronauts he disliked"). Each book, and any other book, will merely provide snapshots into events from one perspective; it would be follhardy to believe that any one book captures the entire truth.

posted 05-10-2004 04:54 PM               

What one man -says- he remembers is qualitatively different from events as they actually happened. This is the difference between memoir and biography. Memory must be weighed against the documentary evidence. Memoirs are less tied to facts. Biographies are heavily researched.

I based my earlier post about the 1959 selection process on facts that have been proved. In works of nonfiction, proof is provided with citations.

This is why I referred in my original post to FOR SPACIOUS SKIES: The Uncommon Journey of a Mercury Astronaut. Walsh says I provided no citations in my post. But it would be difficult to post all 57 endnotes pertaining to the 1959 selection processin support of a cS post--they took up 7 pages of 9-point text in the book.

In any event, in the book, there for all to see is a true narrative (and a lot of exposition) regarding 1959, told from one (successful) candidate's perspective.

FOR SPACIOUS SKIES provides citations for nearly every assertion of fact--for example, the aforementioned 57 endnotes for the selection chapter alone.

In those notes, you will find references to nearly contemporaneous accounts of the events--original NASA memoranda, THIS NEW OCEAN, interviews with candidates, interviews with Working Group members (Ruff and Voas, Allen Gamble's widow), email follow-ups, WE SEVEN, and published scholarly accounts, among them the little-known but masterful CHOOSING THE RIGHT STUFF, by former NASA psychiatrist Dr. Patricia A. Santy.

Voas, Santy, Mrs. Gamble, and Ruff all read and corrected at least two drafts.

Forty years of innuendo, insinuation, urban legend, lore, myth, and slime are difficult to address with the publication of one true book. And I understand how hard it is for some to give up cherished, albeit untrue, anecdotes about our heroes.

posted 05-10-2004 05:05 PM               

Only the Working Group members, and those who sat on the Selection Committee, were privy to the process.

But urban legend lives on, I guess.

And urban legend will persist as long as writers don't source (and double source) their assertions.

posted 05-10-2004 05:20 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by KC Stoever:
But urban legend lives on, I guess.

---

No kidding. There are still people who insist that they see a munchkin hang himself in the 'Wizard Of Oz'. When you explain that it's a bird brought in to give an outside feel on the set, they almost seem disappointed to hear the truth. :-)

posted 05-26-2004 05:31 AM               

According to the book:

"After Albuquerque, the Space Task Group had thirty-one average supermen to evaluate and weed down to six. The reports from Dryden made it clear that eighteen of them were better-than-average supermen..."

"Four men now held the future of America's man-in-space program in their hands. Charles J. Donlan, Warren North, and Stanley White sat around a table at Langley, Virginia, and debated the merits of the eighteen..."

"By Thursday, April 2, 1959, only seven candidates remained. They were the best of the best, and Donlan, North, and White couldn't decide whom to cut. They called (Bob) Gilruth and explained. He looked at the folders, thumbed them through, and shrugged. 'Then we'll take all seven.' he said."

Just tellin' you what it said. Not saying it's gospel, of course. Food for thought.

posted 05-27-2004 10:28 PM            

... and as Schefter was a major contributor to Chris Kraft's book, it is essentially the same source, not really confirmation.