posted 02-26-2005 05:21 PM               

I bet if Gordo Cooper had died before his Mercury flight, driving his Corvette on the way back from Cocoa Beach one night, his name would be on there.

I worked for an airline for thirty years, and while I was overseas I was still considered to be on duty and available to the airline 24 hours a day, and they were equally responsible for my safety and well-being 24 hours a day.

Jim Oberg makes a very tenuous connection in Bob Lawrence's death in an F-104 crash, suggesting he was testing the airplane's landing capabilities for possible MOL approach techniques, which is a huge stretch. But the board of the AMF accepted this as being "in training" for an MOL flight.

I make no apologies for saying that while both men should be recognised on the Memorial Mirror, Ed Givens is infinitely better qualified and credentialed, and his exclusion shames the AMF board, whose mandate is that of recognising and honouring those astronauts who gave their lives for their nation in space flight or in training for space flight. How can anyone honestly say that Ed Givens was not in training for an Apollo mission?

posted 02-26-2005 06:32 PM               

Colin, couldn't agree with you more on the Givens omission! We need to add his name, the sooner the better!

posted 02-28-2005 09:09 PM            

I believe that the Shepard quote was intended to intimidate the young, independent O'Leary more than establish memorial policy.

Otherwise, we must also insist that the names of others who have died while in the employ of NASA also be listed, such as:

• Patricia Robertson (a colleague of mine), who died in 2001 after the other pilot she was instructing crashed the private airplane they were in;
  
• Stephen Thorne, who died as a passenger in the crash of a small aircraft in 1986, while still an astronaut-candidate;
  
• Lacy Veach, a veteran of two space flight and many combat missions over Vietnam, who died in 1995 of cancer while still an active astronaut;
  
• David Griggs, who died in 1989 in the crash of a vintage airplane while training as the pilot of STS-33 -- incidentally, his vintage aircraft flying was against astronaut office recommendations at the time, if I recall correctly -- seems like they were reluctant to say he was breaking the rules, but the rules did get tightened up aftewards, unless I am mistaken.

Where do we draw the line?

Ultimately, it is the decision of the keepers of the memorial as to who is memorialized. After all, they opted to include Sonny Carter (a wonderful man, whose absence is still keenly felt), who died in the crash of a commercial airliner, because he was on official travel.

posted 02-28-2005 10:54 PM               

It is the hypocracy of the AMF that annoys me, and their mandate of saying they only honour those whose names are on their Memorial Mirror, by inference excluding others. Then, when political pressure is exerted, the board suddenly reinterprets its own ever-shifting rules to make allowances for one more person.

Robert Lawrence's son Tracey refused to attend the unveiling ceremony for his father's name, saying he had no intention of attending because of "the antagonism, or what might appear to be antagonism, on the part of the board of directors. They refused to recognise him. What do they call it? It was really unanimous refusal to recognise him for a period of years."

Jim DeSantis, foundation president had this to say at the unveiling of Bob Lawrence's name. "We wanted to make sure he had the same full honour the other sixteen had. We never wanted a situation where people came to see the Space Mirror and said 'There were sixteen astronauts and there was Major Lawrence who was never declared an astronaut.'" Yeah, right, Jim. So theoretically I pay my $23 just to see the Mirror, and I ask you where is the name of astronaut Ed Givens?

Ed Givens was an astronaut, and an astronaut in training. His family hurts just as much as the family of Bob Lawrence once did, and I want to see his name on this Mirror because otherwise they dishonour him and his legacy, and that of the others.

I'm an Australian, and unlike the AMF board I reiterate that I honour without exception all of those astronauts and cosmonauts who have died in our outward urge, whether they flew or not. My last book was dedicated to the memory of Patricia Hilliard Robertson, so I certainly haven't forgetten her contribution and that of the others.

I don't care if the AMF board just keeps sweeping me under their carpet, hoping I'll go away; at least I'm trying to do what they should unquestionably have done in the first place. Dignity, respect and honour - isn't that what memorials are all about?

posted 03-01-2005 01:19 PM               

Is it a case that if they added the six or so more people that might deserve the honor that there would be limited room left on the Space Mirror?

Is it that they feel that by adding the six or so more that the other families would feel their relatives' honor had been diminished?

posted 03-01-2005 02:03 PM            

In the wake of the Challenger accident in 1986, The Astronauts Memorial Foundation was born. AMF honors all U.S. astronauts and astronauts who flew with U.S. crews on American Space Ships, who have lost their lives while on missions or in training. Twenty-four astronauts are now honored by AMF.

The word "all" is clearly untrue, as discussed in this message thread and many times in the past. There are people on the memorial who do not meet that definition, and people left off who do. Any definition of "in training" that includes Ted Freeman cannot NOT include Ed Givens. Freeman was never officially assigned to any training for a specific mission. Should he be on the mirror? Of course.

My suspicion is, a plane crash or death within a spacecraft is considered a suitably "romantic" death to get you on a memorial. A car crash while attending an air force function also attended by Gordon Cooper is not.

Contact information for the AMF administrators can be found here The board of directors are listed here and include some well-known names to whom comment may wish to be made by readers here.

posted 03-01-2005 02:34 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Charles:
Ultimately, it is the decision of the keepers of the memorial as to who is memorialized.

---

posted 03-02-2005 08:04 PM            

I don't want to be in a position of even appearing to disparage the memory of anyone of the deceased who have been mentioned in this discussion, so I will conclude my contribution to this thread by noting simply that those honored by the AMF had died in the course of conducting official duties, such as flying in training aircraft, training in a spacecraft intended for launch, actually flying in a spacecraft, or (in the case of Sonny Carter) travelling in a commercial aircraft on official business ("on orders") for NASA. Those who are not memorialized on the Mirror were all equally honorable, but died while performing activities other than official NASA or USAF duties.

Those are the simple criteria: not how much pain the families felt or continue to feel; or how accomplished the individual was in life; or what the individual might have accomplished had he or she lived. Each has been memorialized in other appropriate ways, I am sure.

I ask, if you continue to debate the appropriateness of the inclusion criteria, to consider where you would draw the line.

posted 03-08-2005 08:27 PM               

You both make excellent points and so I am asking a question. I think that we all agree that the intent of the Board of the AMF is to appropriately honor the astronauts we lost. I knew Jim DeSantis and worked on some projects for the AMF when the issue of honoring Bob Lawrence came to a head. As I remember the AMF sent the ball back to the Air Force to "officially" declare Lawrence an astronaut. We all know that he was selected for the MOL Program and had he lived would probably joined NASA in 1969 when the other MOL astronauts did. But at the time of this discussion the Air Force hadn't "officially" proclaimed him an astronaut. So when they did he was added. So my question is, if Ted Freeman and C.C Williams were qualified to be included, why not Ed Givens. Was he at this function to do a formal presentation on behalf of NASA? If so he meets the Sonny Carter test. Were Ted Freeman and C.C. Williams "just getting their flight hours" or were they traveling for NASA business. Don't misunderstand, I think all of the names on the Space Mirror belong there (teacher and Israeli) included. But if Givens was doing NASA business at this Quiet Birdman event then he should be added also.

Colin, have you tried contacting Miles O'Brien at CNN or Bill Harwood of CBS for help?

I don't think adding names would diminish the honor to the others. But maybe an independent review of the candidates and qualifications are in order.

posted 03-08-2005 11:04 PM               

And I'll certainly add my welcome to you to collectSPACE. Ted Freeman was undertaking flight proficiency in the T-38, and CC Williams was flying back to Houston from duties at the Cape. The AMF argue that Ed Givens was "off duty" when he died, although as Francis French has rightly pointed out, that is not listed in their candidacy mandate. I won't reiterate my points on this, as they appear above and in much earlier posts I have made.

The thing you want to know is that Ed Givens was attending a meeting of the Ancient Order of the Quiet Birdmen in Pearland that night. This is a fraternal organisation of air force pilots and former officers. Some of the nation's most celebrated and legendary pilots attend these meetings. They gather to salute lost comrades and to discuss their part in the world of aviation, and these functions are just not open to anyone. Strict criteria apply, and anyone who attends has to be specifically invited by a local area charter. It was not a "party" as I've seen described. Yes, Ed Givens elected to go - he was not assigned this as a "week in the barrel" obligation by NASA. He felt it an honour to be in the presence of these distinguished aviators, and would not have missed it for the world. Gordon Cooper was also in attendance, but again this was probably by personal choice. Even though they were not officially representing NASA, they were certainly introduced and recognised as NASA astronauts. Bill Hall, who was in the Volkswagen with Ed Givens that fateful night, told me that Givens was not drinking as he had an early morning session with (I believe) Deke Slayton and would also be leaving the function early for that same reason. He died because he kindly offered a lift back to Ellington to a pair of air force reservists on a filthy, wet night. He was not drunk, and Hall told me that Givens was in fact driving very cautiously. Please see an earlier post of mine about the hazardous road conditions that contributed to the accident.

It is my firm contention that a NASA astronaut and active air force officer can never be off duty, and he was certainly not contraveing any orders in attending this prestigious function.

But of course as John quite rightly points out, where is the line drawn? If Ed Givens is included, do we then look at including Patricia Hilliard Robertson and Stephen Thorne, and others? I will only state that Ed Givens, who would likely have flown on an Apollo mission, is the sole pre-shuttle astronaut never to be honoured by the AMF.

And unlike Jim Oberg, I'm not about to embark on a vigorous and highly-emotional media campaign. I believe that a sense of fair play and rightful recognition will one day win through and I'm quietly doing something about this behind the scenes.

posted 03-09-2005 04:43 PM               

Maybe there is some way to honor the contributions of Givens, Hilliard, Thorne, etc. until this can be settled. I applaud you for your book and your efforts. I'm sure their families appreciate it also.