posted 07-19-2008 03:43 PM            

Gerry Griffin was a flight director at NASA, his role is described as the "head coach" of mission control.

posted 07-19-2008 05:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Betsy:
I used to wish that I could go back in time and witness the youthful energy associated with President Kennedy. He was young, vital and handsome......and at first, I romanticized that period in history. Then I realized what a scary time it was and I have never wished to go back there again.

---

posted 07-20-2008 04:23 PM            

Just reading the posts on this board alone (amongst other things), it amazes me how well Neil has handled his incredible fame. I simply can't imagine what it's like for him to make an appearance and be mobbed by hundreds of fans. I'm sure he's had his "off" days, but from the great majority of reports, the man has been extremely gracious and accomodating. The reports here of fan encounters with NA have been very positive - and that's nice to hear because people are often disillusioned when they either meet their favorite celebrities. (who end up having feet of clay).

posted 07-20-2008 08:19 PM               

Reading through the thread again--and pondering the way you framed the "genuine hero" question, I wonder if it wouldn't help to class heroes thus. Oh, and let's posit that heroes by definition must save lives or further a noble, life-saving, nation-saving cause or policy at the risk of his life and beyond the call of duty.

--demigods from mythology
--warriors and adventurers throughout history
--healers
--political, religious, and moral leaders
--amateurs (e.g., Lenny Skutnik)
--professional military men and women (soldiers, seamen, marines, aviators, and astronauts).

Let's further posit that all of the above heroes can go on to lead lives either of obscurity or glory-hounding. It doesn't matter. Their original act or acts of heroism cannot be canceled out post hoc.

Further, now that we've classed the different types of heroes (I haven't included sports figures or celebrities), you could make an argument that professional astronauts don't deserve to be called heroes. That could be NA's personal and private view.

In fact, NA's apparent reluctance to embrace the status of hero is characteristic of military veterans. They remember their dead comrades.

For a combat veteran like NA to go on to the opportunity of a lifetime (with outsized fame and glory that just complicates his life)--well, I wonder if NA and other fame-averse astronauts may prefer to think of themselves merely as lucky to have been given an an outsized opportunity to serve and lucky (to paraphrase Al Shepard's immortal prayer) not to have "f*cked up."

posted 07-22-2008 01:26 PM               

Now concerning Armstrong and voicing a concern that he didn't make a lot of public appearances or knock on Congressman's doors to drum up NASA support, frankly I don't think it would have done much good anyway. Take John Glenn, first American to orbit the earth and the 1962 public hero. He became a Senator and today he is vocal on space program issues in the wake of his return to orbit on Discovery. Even then, it hasn't made much of a dent and HE was a policy maker!

The big problem with getting involved with the political game is then you have to side with some ally and his enemies become your enemies. It can be a lot like wrestling a pig in a mud pit. You just get dirty and the pig doesn't care as he is already dirty. Politics are not what Neil is about at all. Politics is also a game of horse trading. What do you do when some influencial Senator says "Sure I will back your space initiative. But I want you Mr. "hero" to give me support for this big project which has nothing to do with it before I back your program." What does one do then? Reputation as "First Man" only goes so far among policy makers who only tend to see what they can get from it as opposed to what one is telling them.

posted 07-22-2008 05:11 PM            

Very interesting post. Frankly, I think it's up to NASA and the government to ratchet up the public's enthusiasm for the space program, instead of putting the responsiblity on NA's shoulders and expecting him to do their job. To me, thats a cop out.

As to Neil, you would think people would just be glad that the first man to set foot on the Moon is a man of such integrity and character instead of being unhappy that he doesn't do more. Isn't it better that he participate only in events that he truly believes in instead of promoting the heck out of himself at every opportunity?

I think the real problem is the media. I have very little respect for them in general and they live down to my expectations always. They can't get provocative, colorful quotes out of NA for some big, headline grabbing story so they make snarky comments about him living under a rock, so to speak. With the media, they like to focus on the negative. So, if NA does not appear in every Moon movie, that's what they will focus on. He's made it perfectly clear that he feels he's gotten far too much attention for what was a team effort - the media should laud him for his humility (rather than branding him an aloof hermit) and then, instead of harping on the fact that he is not available, get the thoughts of the other astronauts (who would also have some extremely interesting things to say).

posted 07-22-2008 06:53 PM               

That may be justifiable in some cases, but I can't really see it here. What exactly should "The Media" be reporting about Neil? He did something extremely noteworthy and received as much coverage for it as nearly any human being in history, but it was nearly 40 years ago. Since then he has chosen to maintain a low profile, and more power to him--but again, given that choice of his, what is the media to report? "Armstrong says nothing." "Neil again says nothing." At this point, he is a non-story in terms of general news, which is how he seems to prefer it. Saying that he keeps a low profile, or even describing him as a "recluse" in celebrity terms, is hardly "snarky." I can't honestly say that I've even seen his name in anything that would be regarded as "mainstream media" for years, other than to note on some occasions (when it would be natural for a layperson to wonder) that he declined to participate in some project or event. Beyond that, what is "newsworthy?" To laud him for his humility is a little counterintuitive: "Neil Armstrong declined to participate in the project because he is a wonderfully humble guy" just doesn't sound worthy of a headline. :^)

posted 07-22-2008 07:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Betsy:
Frankly, I think it's up to NASA and the government to ratchet up the public's enthusiasm for the space program, instead of putting the responsiblity on NA's shoulders and expecting him to do their job. To me, thats a cop out.

---

Neil Armstrong, to his credit, has done a fair amount recently with NASA, even little touches such as recording filmed introductions to NASA's website and participating in the Ambassadors of Exploration program. Rather than some 'dumping-on-shoulders' scenario which I am not sure is an accurate summary, I have seen a fair amount of cooperation, both formal and informal, between Armstrong and the administration, to a comfort level that seems quite in keeping with Armstrong's character.

posted 07-22-2008 09:53 PM            

I was trying to make the point (but apparently I didn't do a good job, which is my fault) that I didn't understand why people criticize Armstrong for not doing enough to promote the space program. I ended up on a tangent about the media and now that I've re-read the post, I'm not quite sure how I ended up doing that, lol. Let's leave the media out of it then and deal with my major point.

Do you believe NA has a responsibility to be more visible so as to get the public more enthused about the space program? Despite his efforts to deflect credit away from him, he is the "big" name and it seems that he is expected to do more with his fame. What do you think?

FFrench, thanks for the very interesting reply. I never thought about NASA in that light before. Given that, what do you think can be done to get the public fascinated again with space exploration? Do you think that after the Apollo missions people got bored with going to the Moon and now almost take working in space for granted?

posted 07-22-2008 10:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Betsy:
FFrench, thanks for the very interesting reply. I never thought about NASA in that light before. Given that, what do you think can be done to get the public fascinated again with space exploration? Do you think that after the Apollo missions people got bored with going to the Moon and now almost take working in space for granted?

---

Currently, my work takes place in a museum setting, although I still consult at a fair number of science festivals around the country. We look for ways to make space relevant, hands-on and fun. For example, telling people about the latest Mars discoveries in a lecture format may not be interesting to everyone. But show photos on a large screen in 3-D and provide glasses, and have a model Mars rover the kids can drive, and it comes to life for everyone. Then, all of a sudden, curiosity makes people want to dig deeper, and they start asking questions about the science, the engineering... you provide a hook to engage them, and soon they are hooked.

Having said that, we have to be realistic. We are a pretty specialist group here with a specialist interest. There are hundreds of comparable groups out there. For example, I think steam trains are amazing things, and would happily visit a museum about them, but after an hour I am probably done with steam trains for the next five years - maybe ten. I love visiting art galleries, but I'm not necessarily going to get involved in arts promotion or awareness in a major way. It's impossible to make converts out of everyone, even if they are interested.

What you can do is, show people that space does have a direct link to their lives. That it is interesting and easily accessible (science intimidates so many people, we have to undo a lot of preconceptions before we can do). If nothing else, people then have a positive opinion. Hopefully, even better, they will care enough that the next time a vote comes around or other choice where they can make an influential difference, they'll remember that positive moment.

To drag us back to the thread's subject - over the years, I've hosted a good number of astronaut speakers, and heard many others in other venues. Armstrong gives a good talk; he's probably not going to fire up a room full of people to become advocates, but he does what he does well. He reminds me of the kind of amiable college professor who loves his subject, and once you get him going on it, he may chat all day. His preferred subjects seem to be less about himself, or even Apollo, but instead the grand sweep of engineering history. I suspect he'd prefer to talk for an hour about Octave Chanute, than for five minutes on Apollo 11. He is seemingly very aware of his place in history and can talk about it most eloquently. But he is very careful with it, and also seems very mindful of a fundamental truth of Apollo - that astronauts were people chosen to carry out the most public part of an effort created by thousands. They had less overall influence than many managers most space enthusiasts, never mind the public, have never heard of. Rightly or wrongly, whether as a hard-held belief or a reason to duck out of the limelight, Armstrong sticks to that truth. The fact that he is a big name contradicts that stance, so to see Neil Armstrong using his name as a soapbox would... well, it would not be Neil Armstrong.

Would I love to see him on the road more, firing people up? Of course. Is he obliged to? No way. Could one person change the popular opinion of a nation of taxpayers in a significant way? Probably not much.

I am grateful to any and all of the spacefarers who do give their time - and some, like Gene Cernan, spend weeks on the road giving talk after talk and enthusing thousands of people a year.

They have my respect. So do the people who are enjoying a full retirement. Plus every shade inbetween... and Armstrong would fall somewhere in there.

posted 07-23-2008 03:35 AM               

The question is simple but, it seems, not the answer.

Whilst there are varied definitions, it appears that the common, if not universally accepted meaning of hero is a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities. A man who shows great courage and is legendary in an almost mythological sense.

These words, in my opinion, certainly apply to The First Man and it would be convenient to leave the answer at that however, what of the entire Mercury, Gemini and Apollo corps? Does the stated definition apply to all?

Perhaps, perhaps not, like all of us I have my own private views, and in my mind Armstrong certainly qualifies (not because he was "first", as, in my opinion, Gus Grissom would have held that mantle had he been alive) as a hero if we accept the aforementioned definition of the word.

posted 07-23-2008 07:38 AM            

As to NA (and back on topic), I hope one day he comes to NY and I can get a chance to hear him speak. I admire the fact that he prefers not to talk about HIS accomplishment and instead chooses to focus on the efforts of everyone in the Apollo program.

When I found out that he had authorized a biography to be written about him, I think my jaw dropped. NA almost seemed like a figure (at least to me) out of the distant past,so much did he value his privacy. I really enjoyed the book - he's a fascinating man who's lived a fascinating life. I guess it's natural for people to want to get his thoughts and feelings on Apollo 11, but as you say, he picks and chooses his spots carefully. I guess it comes down to his quote about wanting to be known about the "total ledger" (or something like that) of his life instead of just one thing. He was referring in general to people and I have to agree. I know this isn't the best analogy, but it's sort of like an actor who gets typecast in one sort of role (or one character) and then the public almost refuses to accept that actor as when he portrays a completely different type of character. As someone who has always been rather a square peg in a round hole, and who has resisted trying to be like everyone else, I have to say again that I admire NA for his ability to live life, as his bio said, "on his own terms". For all of his fame and legend, he's been able to live his life the way he wanted.

Leslie, I agree with everything you said. I do have a question: what was Slayton's rationale that Grissom would have been the first man had he lived? That he was a Mercury vet?

Hi David - you bet the Soviet cosmonauts were heroes as well. They were taking just as many risks as the Americans. I haven't met any of the Apollo astronauts, but st listening to them in various documentaries, they seem like just terrific men. I gave my impression earlier in this thread, but since you mentioned Al Bean....I thought he was just wonderful. I also think he's a very talented artist.

posted 07-23-2008 07:46 AM               

As for your question, I'm perfectly fine with the "approach" he has taken over the years. Could he have done more somehow to promote NASA's efforts and space exploration in general? Certainly, but I can't say that that is necessarily his responsibility, nor can I say that I believe it would have necessarily made any substantive difference in areas such as funding or priorities. I would much prefer to have a "First Man" who carries the mantle with his dignity and reservedness than someone who endlessly capitalizes on the fame. That would be a fine line to try to do both, be a promoter while avoiding the traps, and the approach he has taken seems to me to be a good compromise.

posted 07-23-2008 08:46 AM               

Sources close to DS have told me that they thought GG would be his natural choice as First Man and, without any first hand confirmation, I have always had that in mind. I could easily justify personal reasons as to why, not least the apparent camaraderie between the Mercury crews, that I can see the logic but I am unable to consolidate my statement as I never had the good fortune to meet Deke Slayton.

posted 07-23-2008 09:50 AM               

I am confident in saying this based on reading every biography and autobiography that has come out over the last 40 years that Deke Slayton would have preferred to have one of the original seven be "First Man." If Shepard's condition was corrected early enough he would have been given a shot, if Gus had lived he would have. Heck if Deke was on flight status he would have nominated himself. Since none of the original guys was available he went to group 2. Armstrong, Conrad or Lovell could have been First Man.

As far as the public not supporting NASA like they did during Apollo the answer is yes and no. The majority of the public was very excited about going to the Moon. But after Apollo 11 support was like holding a fist full of sand. It just slipped away. "We won the race - why do we continue to send missions to the Moon?" That's why Congress and the White House was able to cut Apollo 18, 19 & 20 so easily. People were actually complaining when media coverage interupted their favorite shows on television.

Today's public want instant gratification even more so than 40 years ago. Everything is faster, 24-7 news, sports, celebrity for the sake of celebrity. Oh sure they will support the return to the Moon for the first couple of missions but unless the mission can be tied to something they feel is important - its a fist full of sand all over again.

posted 07-23-2008 11:29 AM               

Circa 1962-63, when Deke was just taking a management role in the astronaut office, there was no reason for him to believe that any Mercury astronaut would still be with the program in 1968. He looked at the entire 1962 group of astronauts as potential commanders of that first landing -- and shaped the careers of Borman and McDivitt in particular (one to follow CSM development, one to deal with the LM) to that end. Armstrong, Conrad and Stafford were also good candidates, and were given responsibilities and flight opportunities that reflected Slayton's views.

In late 1965, early 1966, once it was clear that Grissom was going to remain with NASA and play a part in Apollo, Slayton added him to his list of potential commanders -- and with the concurrence of MSC Director Gilruth (who had been quite clear that no single astronaut was going to get all the "firsts") made plans to give Grissom a good chance of commanding the first landing attempt.

Slayton was friends with Grissom, and there was the seniority factor (Grissom was a Mercury astro), but it also reflected Slayton's judgment (and Gilruth's and Kraft's) that Grissom had the operational skills to do the job.

posted 07-23-2008 06:25 PM            

No need to apologize - I should have been more clear. What I really meant was that, in articles that the media writes in regards to Neil's absence from various Moon/Space documentaries, it is misleading to call him a hermit or reclusive. The reason why he doesn't appear in many of these "Moon movies" has more to do with the fact that he is honestly humble about his role history. He clearly feels that it isn't quite right that he has garnered the lion's share of the glory for something that thousands of people actually contributed to. In declining to participate in In the Shadow of the Moon, Neil told David Sington (the producer?) that to describe HIS feelings about the Moon landing would be to miss the point of the thing. Notice how in When We Left the Earth , Neil's contributions ended at the landing. After that, Buzz took over. I think he knows (as Sington also pointed out in an interview) that if he were to constantly describe his feelings about landing on the Moon, or being the first man to set foot on the Moon, it would become all about him....when this was really an experience for everyone to share.

posted 07-23-2008 06:41 PM            

KS, you're very welcome - I really appreciate all of the responses and I'm learning a lot, which is important to me.

I can understand why Slayton would have felt loyalty (and it would hardly have been misplaced, as his Mercury comrades were extremely capable) to one of the Original 7.

I guess when it comes down to it, Americans at the time just wanted to beat the Russians and it so happened that the competition took place in outer space. That's a rather depressing notion, but hardly surprising. Unfortunately, I also can't say I'm surprised that the public was complaining about Moon landings interrupting their tv shows. Americans have very short attention spans. We're the same people who voted Oprah ahead of Albert Einstein when Discovery Channel had their contest about the most important people in history. That pretty much says it all to me.

posted 07-24-2008 04:13 AM               

Meeting him was a total honour and pleasure: but maybe that's it: maybe you have to be less accessible than Cdr Carpenter to achieve 'living legend' status. Me? I think shaking hands with one of the original Mercury 7 Astronauts was just the greatest thrill. I offered him a piece of Lunar meteorite: he smiled kindly and declined...

posted 07-24-2008 07:36 AM               

The heroes I've had the honor to meet never think of themselves as heroes. Perhaps that defines them as well.

posted 07-24-2008 11:01 AM               

--Emily Dickinson

Fame and celebrity are different from the more lasting recognition conferred by heroism.

I recall for a brief shining moment in a late 1970s, two or three Carpenters had entries in WHO'S WHO INTERNATIONAL: a British bioggrapher of C. S. Lewis (Humphrey Carpenter) and noted pop singer Karen Carpenter. I forget the third. It wasn't Malcolm Scott Carpenter, Project Mercury astronaut.

I don't worry, however, about Carpenter's place in history, which strikes me as secure. And I would venture to say that 21st-century encyclopedias may have restored a Scott Carpenter entry and deleted that for the tragically anorexic chanteuse.

posted 07-25-2008 01:29 AM               

So are Charles Lindbergh, Amelia Earhart, Chuck Yeager, Audie Murphy and so on not thought of as heroes in the US any longer? How sad. Over here everything has become so conciliatory and PC that aviation heroes like Douglas Bader and Guy Gibson have virtually been erased from history. And a recent documentary including Dambuster bomb-aimer George Johnson was edited to make it sound like he was ashamed of his part in the raid. (Which, going by his comments at last year's autographica, he isn't!)

posted 07-25-2008 04:42 AM               

Political correctness has invaded our society and, sadly, conquered... I always thought that Scott Carpenter and Wally Schirra were on the receiving end of the "what should be seen to be done" rather than "is it really necessary" management style as is mostly the case in Western World politics today. Forget the fact they risked their lives advancing the programme, they upset a few beaurocrats.

Time may cause the true heroes and heroines to be fashionable or not, but the passing of time can never erase the accomplishments of the true explorers who ventured into space on behalf of their country.

posted 07-25-2008 06:56 AM               

Lindbergh, Earhart, Yeager and Murphy haven't lost their "hero" label, it's just that they aren't as remembered by today's public.

It will be interesting if around 2044 a poll doesn't place the then current Moonwalkers higher than the "old Apollo guys."

posted 07-25-2008 10:19 AM            

My first student was a sweet little boy named "Danny". His family was recently arrived from Mexico and his parents didn't speak english. Danny enjoyed flying a Cessna 152 but when I tried to teach him how to use an E6-B or do a weight and balance problem he soon lost interest. I discovered that Danny had never heard of Ray Bradbury or Arthur Clarke. For that matter he didn't know Mark Twain, Jack London or Hemingway. I spent the second half of the semester reading Bradbury to Danny. Although that's not what we had planned for it was a positive experience for both the boy and me.

My next apprentice student was named "Brandon". Brandon was 8th grade but looked to be about 17 or 18 years old. He needed a shave and looked like a gang member. On our first meeting I asked him to name some of the pilots he had heard about.

"I've never heard of a pilot who was famous," he replied.

"Charles Lindbergh?" I asked.

"No," he replied.

Amelia Earhart?

"No," he replied.

Jimmy Doolittle?

"No," he replied.

The Wright Brothers?

"No," he replied.

"Neil Armstrong, John Glenn, Chuck Yeager?"

"No."

posted 07-26-2008 04:12 AM               

Happens here as well. I had a very aggressive (putting it mildly) debate on an Australian forum regarding the teaching fraternity and they inability to post a cogent or reasoned response was staggering.