|
|
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Military Service bias in the Astronaut Office?
|
GoesTo11
Member Posts: 1309
From: Denver, CO
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 11-21-2007 04:34 PM
   
Greetings all (and Happy Thanksgiving to fellow American cS'ers)!I've just finished reading Mike Mullane's "Riding Rockets." I found the book both entertaining and incisive, and was especially intrigued to read Colonel Mullane's insights into one particular issue about which I've always been curious: The perception of service bias in astronaut crew selection. A little personal background: I was an Air Force brat who arrived with my family at RAF Alconbury, UK, just a couple of months before the Challenger tragedy. I was 12 years old and my interest in astronauts and the Shuttle program was still in the "youthful infatuation" stage. I knew (and cared) little of George Abbey or the political machinations within the Astronaut Office. Anyway, I had the privilege of meeting several USAF astronauts who visited the base during the post-Challenger stand-down. (I assume that this was the same "Re-Blueing" tour that Colonel Mullane describes in his book, though I don't recall meeting him specifically. I do remember Colonel John Blaha taking pity on this obviously intimidated kid and kindly inviting me over for a chat and some unsolicited autographs.) There was one question I wish I'd had the nerve to ask, although it seems highly unlikely that I'd have gotten a candid answer: "Boy, NASA sure takes care of their Navy guys, don't they?" In "Riding Rockets," Colonel Mullane relates a cringe-worthy anecdote about receiving his USAF Astronaut wings that seems to confirm some long-held suspicions of mine, specifically, that USAF Astronauts received far less institutional support from their service than did their Navy counterparts, and that the "Blue Suiters" may have suffered from the ambivalent and occasionally contentious political relationship between NASA and the Air Force in the early years of the Shuttle program. My interest in the Shuttle and the space program is now that of a (reasonably) well-informed enthusiast, and much of what I believed at age 12 about the program and the Astronaut Corps now seems quite naive. But I'm not nearly as close to the subject as many members here are, and I'd be very interested to hear some other opinions and perspectives. Has there ever been an institutional (or individual) bias at NASA with respect to military astronauts' service affiliations, especially concerning crew assignments? If so, why? And are things different today? Any related anecdotes or references? Thoughts? Feelings? Comments? Thanks very much! Kevin |
KSCartist
Member Posts: 2896
From: Titusville, FL USA
Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted 11-21-2007 07:25 PM
Hi Kevin-I too enjoyed Riding Rockets and was struck by the description of the cold shoulder offered to Mike by the USAF after his first flight. Of course you have to remember that his experience was years ago abd that the same may not hold true today. It would be interesting to list all of the "Chief Astronauts" and their branch of service. It does make sense however that there be an espirit de corps among astronauts of the same service. I look forward to reading the replies your question generates. Tim |
archie_gus
Member Posts: 39
From: melbourne, fl
Registered: Apr 2002
|
posted 11-22-2007 06:08 AM
I don't know if this actually counts as an institutional bias, but I thought James Hansen (the Armstrong biographer) made an interesting point when speaking about his book. He made quite a point of noting that 6 of the 7 Apollo (scheduled) moon landing mission commanders were from the Navy (Armstrong, Conrad, Lovell, Shepard, Young and Cernan). He implied that this spoke volumes about the high regard in which the Navy pilots were held. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2169
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 11-22-2007 07:11 AM
quote:
Originally posted by archie_gus:
He made quite a point of noting that 6 of the 7 Apollo (scheduled) moon landing mission commanders were from the Navy (Armstrong, Conrad, Lovell, Shepard, Young and Cernan).
Don't forget, though, the commanders of Apollo's 8, 9, and 10 were all Air Force. These missions were just as important as the moon landings missions -- if they were so important and the Navy pilots were being favored, why did Navy pilots not command them?Besides, Deke Slayton was Air Force, so I doubt that he had much of a Navy bias... ------------------
John Capobianco
Camden DE |
hlbjr
Member Posts: 475
From: Delray Beach Florida USA
Registered: Mar 2006
|
posted 11-23-2007 08:22 AM
I really took exception to James Hansen's characterization of the number of moon landing missions being commanded by Navy guys. He clearly did his homework studying Neal and getting up to speed on the general aspects of the space program, but he clearly hasn't read all of the biographies and histories like most of we C.S.'ers. For example, it is known that Mike Collins was offered Apollo 17's command by Deke and he says as much in "Carrying the Fire". He told Deke he simply couldn't do that to his family and further commented it was with more than a passing interest he watched Apollo 17's launch 3 years later. Furthermore, it has been discussed ad nauseum that Gus would have possibly had a moon command had he lived. Borman & Stafford both may have had a command had they not decided to retire after Apollos 8 & 9 respectively. Doesn't that significantly change the picture re Air Force vs. Navy commands for Moon landings? That comment by Hansen betrayed his failure to grasp the real issues regarding the information he was seeing and I noted it the second I read it in his book.Harvey Brown
Delray Beach, Florida |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 11-24-2007 01:21 AM
Concerning Navy bias, I don't think it exists that much today (if at all). The 1980s were a bit different as I can imagine that a few in the USAF probably still felt that the shuttle program was a bad idea for their own DoD launches and felt that the money was better spent elsewhere. Then there were probably some feelings about the cancellation of programs in the 1960s, such as Dyna-Soar and MOL (which would have been fully independent space programs, not done with much in the way of NASA support at all). Thus, they made their displeasure known and seemed to take it out on the guys that went over to NASA to join the astronaut ranks. Some of the power mongers at NASA I imagine probably threw it back at the USAF in response, meaning the Air Force astronauts would have been caught in the middle. That is the jist I got from Mullane's writing anyway. Fast forward two decades and the USAF is a different entity from what it was in the mid-1980s. SAC is gone and the commands have been restructured. The cold war is also over. The current commanders think differently because they have to. Today the Air Force doesn't utilize the shuttle capabilities for much, but they have fully embraced a space presence in terms of infrastructure and manpower. Then you've also got an officer like General Kevin Chilton, at one time in charge of US Space Command and Now US STRATCOM and a four star general to boot. If there was some sort of a bias against this shuttle astronaut by the boys in blue when he resumed active duty after his over a decade long period of service for NASA (and three shuttle flights), then I wouldn't have expected him to climb that high in rank. He has achieved what no other astronaut has in terms of a service command, regardless of the service branch. BTW Goes, is that name of yours a Spinal Tap reference?  Edited by Jay Chladek on November 24, 2007 at 01:22 AM. | |
Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts
Copyright 2020 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a
|
|
|
 advertisement
|
