 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Space History / May 2004Barbara Morgan: longest wait ever??
It just occurred to me that with the current flight stand-down Barbara Morgan must surely have waited some 20 years for her flight - assuming it ever happens. One has to admire her determination! Who else would come close to this extraordinary delay? I can only think of Deke Slayton and Don Lind. What about on the Soviet side? Trying to improve the signal:noise ratio. > Barbara Morgan must surely have waited some 20 years for her flight - > One has to admire her determination! taxpayer parasite..... > taxpayer parasite..... That mirror next to your monitor isn't helping your self-worth any. > It just occurred to me that with the current flight stand-down > Barbara Morgan must surely have waited some 20 years for her flight - [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > only think of Deke Slayton and Don Lind. What about on the Soviet > side? Don Lind waited 19 years Karl Henize & Tony England 18yrs Bruce McCandless 17 yrs Deke Slayton, Bob Parker & Bill Thornton 16yrs Joe Engle, Joe Allen, Bill Lenoir & Story Musgrave 15yrs By my reckoning Barbara Morgan has only been waiting six years, as she was working as a teacher between 1986-98. The only cosmonauts who waited 15 years for their first flight were Valeri Polyakov 16 yrs Leonid Kizim 15 yrs Perhaps a few waited as long without getting into space at all.  SignatureBrian Lawrence Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com Wantage, Oxfordshire, UK I forgot to add Leonid Kadenyuk. Originally selected as a cosmonaut in February 1976. Left the cosmonaut team in March 1983. He returned to training as a Buran pilot in 1988. After that group was disbanded, and following the breakup of the Soviet Union he was assigned as a Payload Specialist representing the Ukraine, and flew on STS-87 in November 1997, 21 years and nine months after his original selection. SignatureBrian Lawrence Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com Wantage, Oxfordshire, UK > > It just occurred to me that with the current flight stand-down > > Barbara Morgan must surely have waited some 20 years for her flight - [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > By my reckoning Barbara Morgan has only been waiting six years, as she was working > as a teacher between 1986-98. Well, by that logic you ought to exclude Tony England from the list of those who had to wait 15-plus years for their first flights, since Tony resigned from NASA in 1972, worked for the USGS for seven years, and returned to NASA in 1979. At that point, he then waited for six years for his first flight in 1985. Doug dvandorn@NOSPAM.mn.rr.com > Brian_W_LawrenceREMTHIS@msn.com says... > > By my reckoning Barbara Morgan has only been waiting six years, as she was working > > as a teacher between 1986-98. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > returned to NASA in 1979. At that point, he then waited for six years > for his first flight in 1985. True. I'd forgotten that. SignatureBrian > Well, by that logic you ought to exclude Tony England from the list of > those who had to wait 15-plus years for their first flights, since Tony > resigned from NASA in 1972, worked for the USGS for seven years, and > returned to NASA in 1979. At that point, he then waited for six years > for his first flight in 1985. He didn't resign from NASA or the USGS and hire on with the other, though. He did a "lateral transfer" or an "inter-agency transfer". Once you get into the Civil Service you don't have to resign to change agencies. I did a lateral transfer from GSA to NASA in 1974. Mary SignatureMary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer miliff@qnet.com > > Well, by that logic you ought to exclude Tony England from the list of > > those who had to wait 15-plus years for their first flights, since Tony [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Once you get into the Civil Service you don't have to resign to change > agencies. I did a lateral transfer from GSA to NASA in 1974. I'll certainly take your word for it, Mary. Though, the term "resigned from NASA" is indeed used in Tony's profile on the excellent Apollo Lunar Surface Journal website. Here's the exact text: "He resigned from NASA in 1972 and served as a Research Geophysicist and Deputy Chief of the Office of Geochemistry and Geophysics during seven years with the U.S. Geological Survey. He then returned to NASA in June 1979 and flew as a Mission Specialist on the Spacelab 2 shuttle flight in 1985." Since that bio never mentioned the term "transfer" in relation to Tony's move from NASA to USGS, I just figured it was more of a straight "I resign from NASA to take a job with the USGS" kind of thing. That's certainly what the bio would lead one to believe... Doug dvandorn@NOSPAM.mn.rr.com > > > Well, by that logic you ought to exclude Tony England from the list of > > > those who had to wait 15-plus years for their first flights, since Tony [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > resign from NASA to take a job with the USGS" kind of thing. That's > certainly what the bio would lead one to believe... I'd have written it as "He left NASA in 1972 to serve as ...." It's a detail. You check a different box in the SF-51 (the blue form) when you change agencies. I was quite surprised at how painless it was, compared to quitting and subsequently being rehired; you don't even have to repeat the oath. Mary SignatureMary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer miliff@qnet.com > I'd have written it as "He left NASA in 1972 to serve as ...." It's a > detail. You check a different box in the SF-51 (the blue form) when > you change agencies. I was quite surprised at how painless it was, > compared to quitting and subsequently being rehired; you don't even > have to repeat the oath. I'd have assumed that anything involving governmentally-issued blue forms would result in repeating *lots* of oaths... Signature-Andrew Gray shimgray@bigfoot.com Andrew Gray <andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk> wrote > > I'd have written it as "He left NASA in 1972 to serve as ...." It's a > > detail. You check a different box in the SF-51 (the blue form) when [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'd have assumed that anything involving governmentally-issued blue > forms would result in repeating *lots* of oaths... This is something that considerably surprised me when I went to work for a USG TLA back in 1972: there were employment papers and legally-worded security agreements to sign, but nothing that looked (to my non-lawyerly eye at least) like an oath. Certainly there was never a hold-up-your-right-hand-and-solemnly-swear moment. Quite disappointing, actually. (I'd be interested to learn what oath Mary is talking about, too.) > Andrew Gray <andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > there was never a hold-up-your-right-hand-and-solemnly-swear moment. > Quite disappointing, actually. My assumption involved less solemnity and more *throwing* things with the right hand... Signature-Andrew Gray shimgray@bigfoot.com Andrew Gray <andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk> wrote > My assumption involved less solemnity and more *throwing* things with > the right hand... Oh, I misunderstood. That came later. > > I'd have written it as "He left NASA in 1972 to serve as ...." It's a > > detail. You check a different box in the SF-51 (the blue form) when [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'd have assumed that anything involving governmentally-issued blue > forms would result in repeating *lots* of oaths... It depends. The blue form is used for hiring, promoting, resigning, terminating, retiring, transferring, and everything else. I don't know its name, but I think it's something like "Request for Personnel Action". For most employees, it's a very benign form. Normally, the employee never sees a blue form until retiring or resigning. Other people, like supervisors, fill them out, mostly. On 27 July 2002, the day I became eligible for a full retirement pension, I went and got an SF-51 blue form and filled out everything, including checking the Retirement box. I did everything but sign and date it. Then any time anyone hassled me, I'd take out the form and look it over. Made me calm. Made the hassler, usually my branch chief, nervous. Retiring, if eligible, is one of the few actions the employee can initiate. It's not subject to review and doesn't require approval. However, it can be revoked until midnight of the last working day (although the personnel specialist who did the paperwork will be really cross). Mary SignatureMary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer miliff@qnet.com > I was quite surprised at how painless it was, > compared to quitting and subsequently being rehired; you don't even > have to repeat the oath. For those of us who haven't worked for the government, could you tell us what oath? SignatureKevin Willoughby kevinwilloughby@acm.orgNoSpam.invalid Imagine that, a FROG ON-OFF switch, hardly the work for test pilots. -- Mike Collins > > I was quite surprised at how painless it was, > > compared to quitting and subsequently being rehired; you don't even > > have to repeat the oath. > > For those of us who haven't worked for the government, could you tell us > what oath? The last time I swore it was in about 1978, when everyone had to re-swear because the Supreme Court said there was something wrong with the version we had been swearing, so I'm a little vague about it. As I recall, you swear (or affirm) that you will defend the Constitution of the United States and properly execute the duties of your office. Let me see if I can find anything by googling. Here we go, from the USDA's site: `I (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.' Everyone but the president has to take this oath to be in the civil or military service. There's a footnote pointing out that defending the Constitution against all enemies doesn't mean that civil servants have to take up arms. This is the Federal version; states, counties, and cities have their own versions. So does the UK, Ireland, and Canada, among others. Mary SignatureMary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer miliff@qnet.com >`I (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support > and defend the Constitution of the United States against all [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Everyone but the president has to take this oath to be in the civil or >military service. The military version IIRC is a bit different as it includes a line or two about obeying officers. A bit of googling yields; I, ________________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. > The military version IIRC is a bit different as it includes a line or > two about obeying officers. A bit of googling yields; [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of > Military Justice. So help me God. Yep, that brings back some memories. SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer Columbia Loss FAQ: <http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html> > > The military version IIRC is a bit different as it includes a line or > > two about obeying officers. A bit of googling yields; [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of > > Military Justice. So help me God. Do the regulations or the Uniform Code of Military Justice say anything about 'bad' orders or the Nuremberg Principle? >> > The military version IIRC is a bit different as it includes a line or >> > two about obeying officers. A bit of googling yields; [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Do the regulations or the Uniform Code of Military Justice say anything > about 'bad' orders or the Nuremberg Principle? Yes, they do. A soldier is required to follow the _legal_orders_ of his/her "Duly Appointed Superiors". In fact, you have a duty to _not_ obey illegal orders, or orders from outside your Chain of Command. SignaturePete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster peter@adelphia.net (Peter Stickney) wrote > In fact, you have a duty to _not_ obey illegal orders, or > orders from outside your Chain of Command. Does it go beyond that, to an affirmative duty to take positive action to prevent clearly illegal orders/actions from being carried out? As an extreme example, if the helicopter pilot at My Lai had been flying a gunship, would he have had the right or the duty to fire on the American soldiers killing the civilians? (Presumably after warning shots, of course.) > peter@adelphia.net (Peter Stickney) wrote > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the duty to fire on the American soldiers killing the civilians? > (Presumably after warning shots, of course.) Yes, it does. It's not simply a matter of eliminating the "I was only following orders" excuse. (Which didn't even hold the slightest bit of water at Nuremburg - the German Generals had proven on numerous occasions that they were quite selective about the orders they followed. But that's another rant). Wrongful orders, and orders from outside the CoC are teh very worst thing for good order and discipline. The wrongful orders part because it's counterproductive, and the outside the Chain of Command bit becasue it then becomes impossible to have the proper orders implemented. If a General is giving orders, and the orders are being countermanded by People Unknown, then it becomes impossible to direct your forces. And, as the Exteme Example, that's very nearly what happened. The helicopter that interposed itself between the civilians and Calley's troops at My Lai was, in fact armed. (It wasn't a Gunship, but the "Slick" troop carriers were also armed with a pair of M60 machine guns in each door. IIRC, the door gunner on the helicopter did indeed train his weapon on Calley's troops. SignaturePete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster >It's not simply a matter of eliminating the "I was only following >orders" excuse. (Which didn't even hold the slightest bit of water at >Nuremburg - the German Generals had proven on numerous occasions that >they were quite selective about the orders they followed... In fact, German officers were *expected* to exercise judgement and be selective about following orders -- the necessity of this was an explicit part of their training -- although this was primarily about orders being invalidated by unexpected combat situations rather than about inherently improper orders. SignatureMOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. | henry@spsystems.net >>It's not simply a matter of eliminating the "I was only following >>orders" excuse. (Which didn't even hold the slightest bit of water at [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > invalidated by unexpected combat situations rather than about inherently > improper orders. In broad terms, there were two distinct types of war crimes trials. There were those associated with putting down insurgencies and those concerned with the concentration camps and associated activities. Also, in rather broad terms, those were committed by different organizations. The German military did try to keep it's soldiers from guard duty and camp work. They were not suited for it. They tended to be tried for items like shooting hostages in case of attacks by various resistance groups. IIRC, the organization behind the camps were a different reporting structure and did not fall under the normal military chain of command. They were basically a nationalized police force. The SS-Totenkopfverbande were structured completely differently from the Waffen-SS. > > In fact, you have a duty to _not_ obey illegal orders, or > > orders from outside your Chain of Command. Think of it as an opportunity (obsref) > The last time I swore it was in about 1978, when everyone had to > Everyone but the president has to take this oath to be in the civil or > military service. That may be it: my agency wasn't under civil service, though our personnel system was mostly paterned after it (GS grades, same pay scale, etc.) My EOD date was 25 September 1972 and I quit to become a better-paid beltway bandit on, lessee, it must have been on either 2 or 9 August 1985. At no time did I or any one I knew of have to take an oath like you describe. It would be interesting to find out if there was some positive reason for the oathlessness, or if it was just historical happenstance. > Well, by that logic you ought to exclude Tony England from the list of > those who had to wait 15-plus years for their first flights, since Tony > resigned from NASA in 1972, worked for the USGS for seven years, and > returned to NASA in 1979. At that point, he then waited for six years > for his first flight in 1985. Also Deke was unfit for flight for most of those 16 years. >Also Deke was unfit for flight for most of those 16 years. In the opinion of some cautious doctors. This was by no means a clear-cut self-evident fact. The problem didn't develop suddenly; he'd had it a long time and it had never interfered with his career as a test pilot. That's a big part of what made his grounding such a sore point for many people, including him -- it wasn't at all clear that it was justified. SignatureMOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. | henry@spsystems.net >>Also Deke was unfit for flight for most of those 16 years. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >That's a big part of what made his grounding such a sore point for many >people, including him -- it wasn't at all clear that it was justified. ...Actually, nowadays cardiofibrulation such as what Deke went thru is better understood, and in most cases can be traced to what Deke himself discovered by accident - a vitamin deficiency. At the same time, the type of fibrulations he experienced happens from time to time to about half the population, and it's usually a very, very infrequent occurrence that comes across more like hunger pangs than anything else. In very, very, very *rare* occasions does it cause any complications, and usually only in conjunction with other, more severe cardiovascular ailments or conditions. Deke, without question, was in excellent physical condition, and every bit of medical data from his test flight days and his Mercury training - including the Lovelace torture sessions prior to his selection - showed that if he had fibrulated during a mission, it caused about as much effect on his performace as having farted really bad. ...In the end, the evidence is clear that the doctors overreacted, and most likely in response to pressure from those above the NASA admins who were never that keen on manned space funding to begin with. It's a known fact that everyone's favorite j.rkoff, Jerome Weisner, was behind the pressure to have Deke grounded. The excuse was that it would have been an embarassment if Deke had "a heart attack" during the mission. The truth was that Deke was sacrificed as an example to the rest of the Original 7 that "astropower" would only go so far, and that none of them should expect to have the immunity that the true "Force of Will" that John Glenn seemed to gain after his flight would apply to them as well. ...If anything, all seven should have done just what they originally considered doing: going straight to the White House, pushing Weisner out of the way *physically*, and explaining the facts of the matter to JFK in the politest, firmest terms as possible when speaking to a commanding officer. That would have put a swift end to the flight surgeon bullshit once and for all, OM Signature"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr >> Well, by that logic you ought to exclude Tony England from the list of >> those who had to wait 15-plus years for their first flights, since Tony [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Also Deke was unfit for flight for most of those 16 years. But he was at NASA those 16 years because he was waiting for a flight. He (and a lot of other people) were convinced it was a matter of time before the next physical, or the one the year after, or two years later okayed him for space. Also, despite the fact he was grounded the payroll still listed him as a NASA Astronaut. -A.L. > >> Well, by that logic you ought to exclude Tony England from the list of > >> those who had to wait 15-plus years for their first flights, since Tony [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Also, despite the fact he was grounded the payroll still listed him as a NASA > Astronaut. Hmmmm... I'm not saying you're wrong, but for most of his career at NASA, Deke was officially listed as Director, Flight Crew Operations, a member of the Flight Operations Directorate (FOD). Now, I believe that John Young is still listed as "NASA Astronaut (inactive)"... Doug dvandorn@NOSPAM.mn.rr.com >Hmmmm... I'm not saying you're wrong, but for most of his career at >NASA, Deke was officially listed as Director, Flight Crew Operations, a >member of the Flight Operations Directorate (FOD). > >Now, I believe that John Young is still listed as "NASA Astronaut >(inactive)"... Point. Though Deke still did go through training with the other astronauts (he went through survival training with the 1962 group, even though he was officially grounded at this point). The term for an inactive astronaut still indicates to me to be one out of training. There are a number of management astronauts NASA's astronaut bio site lists as still active and a number inactive. John Young is listed as a management astronaut, but despite being out of the flight rotation as I understand still jumps in the shuttle simulator from time to time. Did Deke stay in the training regiment? Taking simulator time when he could get it? He certainly kept to flying T-38's whenever he could find a backseater. For the record, I wanted to check if Young is outright listed as "inactive" but the NASA Astronaut Bio site appears to be down. -A.L. >For the record, I wanted to check if Young is outright listed as "inactive" but >the NASA Astronaut Bio site appears to be down. ...Young's addressed this on more than one occasion. Officially, he's active but not in rotation at this time due to his "adminstrative" duties. Unofficially, he's grounded because he sent out way too many caustic letters regarding Challenger's demise and the NASA admin's role in it all. OM Signature"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr >...Young's addressed this on more than one occasion. Officially, he's >active but not in rotation at this time due to his "adminstrative" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Thats bad nasa policy, grounding folks for being outspoken on safety. thats a example to others to keep their mouth shut, when voicing concerns might save a orbiter crew or both. HAVE A GREAT DAY! >>...Young's addressed this on more than one occasion. Officially, he's >>active but not in rotation at this time due to his "adminstrative" [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >a >orbiter crew or both. Yeah, unfortunitaly its tended to go that way. NASA astronauts tend to keep their mouths shut about safety concerns for fear that it will jepordize their chances of flying. "You suck up, you go up." That's possibly why so many have gotten behind this decision to not fly HST SM 4. Its a shame that not much seems to have been written by Shuttle-era astronauts about the Astronaut Office of STS. Burrogh's Dragonfly seems to be pretty much the only big source. Because it is quite the different entity from the Apollo-era Astronaut Office which stuck to a rotation pretty solidly. -A.L. >>Thats bad nasa policy, grounding folks for being outspoken on safety. thats a >>example to others to keep their mouth shut, when voicing concerns might save [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That's possibly why so many have gotten behind this decision to not > fly HST SM 4. Um. Astronauts will keep quiet about potential safety problems in order to get a mission, as can be seen by the way they've supported a decision to not fly a mission because of safety fears. I'm not *entirely* sure that one holds together too well... Signature-Andrew Gray shimgray@bigfoot.com >> That's possibly why so many have gotten behind this decision to not >> fly HST SM 4. Is that really true. What I heard is the astronauts refused to fly a retrieve and return hubble flight but were willing to fly another service flight. nasa management killed the service flight based on safety concerns HAVE A GREAT DAY! >> Yeah, unfortunitaly its tended to go that way. NASA astronauts tend to keep >> their mouths shut about safety concerns for fear that it will jepordize [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >I'm not *entirely* sure that one holds together too well... Sigh... My point was that weather or not safety is the matter, Astronauts tend to get behind management decisions in the hope of getting a flight. That is why I brought up the matter of SM 4 as its a controversial management decision and we have not heard many vocal protests to the idea from Astronaut Office. Possibly because Astronauts don't want to jepordize their chances of flying. Likewise, sometimes Astronauts will keep their mouths shut about safety concerns and just be willing to though possible risks out for fear that if they speak out, they won't go up. They are two matters that are different, but both involve the concept of getting behind NASA management. Clearer now? -A.L. >>> Yeah, unfortunitaly its tended to go that way. NASA astronauts tend to keep >>> their mouths shut about safety concerns for fear that it will jepordize [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Sigh... Sorry; late at night and the online forms were being useless [1]. My apologies for being snippy. > My point was that weather or not safety is the matter, Astronauts tend to get > behind management decisions in the hope of getting a flight. (...) > They are two matters that are different, but both involve the concept of > getting behind NASA management. Yeah, it was just the juxtaposition of "astronauts keeping quiet about safety for Politics" and "astronauts fervently agreeing about safety for Politics" which seemed mildly... odd... :-) (in terms of the safety issue, not the politics one) [1] "We would like you to provide a reference number you will have seen once in your life, on a letter you were sent four years ago and probably handed on soon thereafter. No, you can't do anything without this. Sucks to be you, eh?" Signature-Andrew Gray shimgray@bigfoot.com >Sorry; late at night and the online forms were being useless [1]. My >apologies for being snippy. Apology accepted. I was rather unclear in any case. -A.L. >That's possibly why so many have gotten behind this decision to not fly HST SM >4. Last I heard, the word from the Astronaut Office was that they didn't like the idea of taking the risks of a flight to bring Hubble *down* -- that is, a flight dedicated to providing a museum exhibit -- but had no great objections to taking risks for a servicing mission to keep it running. >Its a shame that not much seems to have been written by Shuttle-era astronauts >about the Astronaut Office of STS. Burrogh's Dragonfly seems to be pretty much >the only big source. Because it is quite the different entity from the >Apollo-era Astronaut Office which stuck to a rotation pretty solidly. Hardly. Even the Apollo-era astronaut corps was full of internal politics and decisions based on personalities rather than competence and hard work. The rotation scheme was more honored in the breach than in the observance. SignatureMOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. | henry@spsystems.net >Thats bad nasa policy, grounding folks for being outspoken on safety. thats a >example to others to keep their mouth shut, when voicing concerns might save a >orbiter crew or both. The problem is that Young didn't 'voice concerns', he utterly violated the chain of command and didn't even pretend to follow channels or procedures. (IIRC/AIUI.) *That* in my book is grounds for grounding if not outright explusion. Follow the procedures and channels, *then* scream from the rooftops. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. >The problem is that Young didn't 'voice concerns', he utterly violated >the chain of command and didn't even pretend to follow channels or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >D. Then he should of been bounced rather than retained in a management roll. I would like more ifo on just what occured and if he hopes to fly again, being punished enough for hios outspokeness? HAVE A GREAT DAY! >Then he should of been bounced rather than retained in a management roll. Old saying that nobody gets fired from NASA. And there is really no way NASA could outright fire someone like Young. I wouldn't be surprised if after Challenger Young was dropped some hints that "it was time to move on", but whatever the case he's still there and is very much aware of what's going on. I read somewhere he was in Misson Control during STS 107's re-entry and saw a few photos that indicate he made a trip to KSC with the STS 114 crew. >I would like more ifo on just what occured and if he hopes to fly again, >being >punished enough for hios outspokeness? There isn't much to know. He broke the chain of command on various occasions. Young's tendancy to release memos detailing his concerns to whomever was noted in "Deke!", Slayton mentions how they were a frustration during preperation for STS 1 more because they failed to follow any chain of command. Young kept up this practice of writing what Deke called "Young-grams" throughout his tenure as Chief of the Astronaut Office. If he plans to fly again, I think he's given up on that idea pretty much. From what I've heard, when asked if he'll fly again, or hopes to, he jokingly replies that his wife would kill him. -A.L. > Old saying that nobody gets fired from NASA. And there is really no way NASA > could outright fire someone like Young. I wouldn't be surprised if after > Challenger Young was dropped some hints that "it was time to move on", but > whatever the case he's still there and is very much aware of what's going on. > I read somewhere he was in Misson Control during STS 107's re-entry He was certainly in one of the more famous STS-107 picutres, though you don't see him (because it's normally cropped). http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts107/030722mmt/lindaham.jpg is the famously terrible Vacant Blonde Bimbo picture, though as I've commented before: : To be fair, she was standing between George Bush Sr. & Barbara Bush, : and I suspect was there in a "and if anything screws up, on your head : be it" role. Any combination of those circumstances would cause me to : debate the wisdom of having had breakfast... If we go to the original blurb... which for some reason has a *different* cropped picture... http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-6/ html/jsc2003e05168.html (nb - wrap) we get to see that Mr Young (as he is apparently styled) is lurking in the background, looking old and maevolent. No-one's at their best in that picture, are they? (I've also just noticed the date. Have to feel even more sorry for the poor lass, getting that photo plastered across the world; not only was she stuck on the Dignitaries Visit, but probably hadn't slept much in the past two days...) Signature-Andrew Gray shimgray@bigfoot.com >http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts107/030722mmt/lindaham.jpg is the >famously terrible Vacant Blonde Bimbo picture, though as I've commented >before: ...Yeah, but there's the one where she looks just like a deer caught in the headlights and is really about to get hit by that 18-wheeler she's staring at. OM Signature"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the background, looking old and maevolent. No-one's at their best in > that picture, are they? Well, as you say below, consider the date. Also, the cutline to this picture identifies Young as a "JSC Associate Director." I guess that's the title for someone who just floats around, does what he wants and helps out wherever he feels he's needed. John is the one in this picture who REALLY looks like he hasn't slept in more than two days. > (I've also just noticed the date. Have to feel even more sorry for the > poor lass, getting that photo plastered across the world; not only was > she stuck on the Dignitaries Visit, but probably hadn't slept much in > the past two days...) I dunno -- Ms. Ham looks (to me) almost thrilled to be in the same room with the former President and First Lady. She's the only one who looks thrilled in any way (though it seems odd that Old George would be smiling so much two days after Columbia burned up). Doug dvandorn@NOSPAM.mn.rr.com [...] > > (I've also just noticed the date. Have to feel even more sorry for the > > poor lass, getting that photo plastered across the world; not only was [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > thrilled in any way (though it seems odd that Old George would be > smiling so much two days after Columbia burned up). Could be she's getting ready to make comment in response to something being said -- speech motions do funny things to faces (and filmmakers don't like it when singers sing in front of the camera). /dps > [...] > > > (I've also just noticed the date. Have to feel even more sorry for the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > being said -- speech motions do funny things to faces (and filmmakers > don't like it when singers sing in front of the camera). You have a point there... Doug dvandorn@NOSPAM.mn.rr.com >>I would like more ifo on just what occured... > >There isn't much to know. He broke the chain of command on various occasions. >Young's tendancy to release memos detailing his concerns to whomever was noted >in "Deke!", Slayton mentions how they were a frustration during preperation for >STS 1 more because they failed to follow any chain of command... I'm told that what *really* got people ticked off at him in the wake of Challenger was that some of the things he was complaining about were *his* fault. The lack of astronaut involvement in decisions, in particular, was because Young himself had never made it a priority: astronauts are busy people, and they want to fly and hence want to impress the boss (the process of crew selection is mysterious, arbitrary, and clearly heavily influenced by office politics), so things that the boss seems to think are important tend to crowd everything else off their schedules. Young's predecessor wanted astronaut involvement and got it; Young didn't seem to care about it, so people stopped naming astronauts to committees etc. because they never showed up for them anyway. A contributing issue was that there was considerable feeling that in the wake of Challenger, it was time for some management turnover regardless of blame -- that new management could make changes more easily because their reputations weren't tied up with old policies, and that the workers would be more confident under people who weren't associated with the disaster. So some very senior people wanted Young to step aside as boss astronaut, and weren't in a mood to be patient with his foibles any more. SignatureMOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. | henry@spsystems.net >A contributing issue was that there was considerable feeling that in the >wake of Challenger, it was time for some management turnover regardless of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >So some very senior people wanted Young to step aside as boss astronaut, >and weren't in a mood to be patient with his foibles any more. I remembered reading in "Dragonfly" that post-Challenger, in a simple internal NASA study, that the Astronaut Office ranked dead last in terms of overall moral, and confidence in management. This lead to the Director of Flight Crew Operations, George Abbey being removed from his position. I imagine the next, logical guy to go would be the Astronaut Office Chief at the time, John Young if that was what caused the removal of his boss. -A.L. >If he plans to fly again, I think he's given up on that idea pretty much. >From >what I've heard, when asked if he'll fly again, or hopes to, he jokingly >replies that his wife would kill him. > >-A.L. Or the shuttle would:( Sad what NASA truly needs is more outspoken concerned persons. No doubt if the chain of command were working he wouldnt of needed to outside of it to get things attended to HAVE A GREAT DAY! > I wouldn't be surprised if after > Challenger Young was dropped some hints that "it was time to move on" Loser:"Y'know, John, you've sure been here a long time. Been to the moon, more flights than almost anyone. Might be time to move on." Young:"I'll miss you. Take those boxes in the corner to clean out your desk when you move on." > > thats a > >example to others to keep their mouth shut And, once again, the copy boy fails to learn from example. >> hallerb@aol.com (bob haller) misspelled ...Who cares? Just killfile the fuckwit and be done with him. >And, once again, the copy boy fails to learn from example. ...Copy boy? Piss boy is more like it. OM Signature"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr Am Sat, 22 May 2004 21:28:23 +0800 schrieb "Neil Gerace": >[...] >Also Deke was unfit for flight for most of those 16 years. Imho he was 'only' said to be so by some over-cautios doctors. Surely there WAS a minor heartbeat irregularity, but that did not hinder him to be a test pilot before his NASA career, and it finally did not hinder him being "declared flightworthy" [scnr] for the ASTP mission. But at the time the decision was made by the meds, that Slayton should NOT go into space, there was really very little known about space medicine and the risks of space faring (in retrospect everybody said to have known all better before:-) - so please give mercy to the docs... cu, ZiLi aka HKZL (Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker) Signature/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign mailto:heinrich@zili.de \ / http://zili.de X No HTML in / \ email & news >Am Sat, 22 May 2004 21:28:23 +0800 schrieb "Neil Gerace": >>[...] [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >to have known all better before:-) - so please give mercy to the >docs... ...To quote Chris Kraft: "And at the meeting one of the doctors stood up and said 'ok, but if his heart starts to fibrulate, we want to halt the launch.'...So I *fired* that sonuvabitch!" They deserve about as much mercy as the NASA PAO does for refusing to quit being anal about spacecraft names. Where Gemini 4 could have been "American Eagle", Apollo 7 could have been "Phoenix" and MER-A and MER-B could have been "Marvin" and "Daffy" instead of what some 10-year-old twerp upchucked on a submission letter, we got nuthin' worthy of market recognition... OM Signature"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr Am Sat, 22 May 2004 17:12:39 -0500 schrieb "OM": >>>Also Deke was unfit for flight for most of those 16 years. [...] >...To quote Chris Kraft: "And at the meeting one of the doctors stood >up and said 'ok, but if his heart starts to fibrulate, we want to halt [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >10-year-old twerp upchucked on a submission letter, we got nuthin' >worthy of market recognition... I think, the one (Deke's grounding) and the other (refusal to let the Astronauts name their spacecrafts after the 'Molly Brown affair') hasn't much coincidence. But anyhow: I agree with the opinion of many people inside and outside US (yours too?), that _many_ people (not only eggheads) in NASA's deciding positions were (and also today are) a POS married to a bunch of SOBs - for several reasons. cu, ZiLi aka HKZL (Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker) Signature/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign mailto:heinrich@zili.de \ / http://zili.de X No HTML in / \ email & news >They deserve about as much mercy as the NASA PAO does for refusing to >quit being anal about spacecraft names. Where Gemini 4 could have been >"American Eagle", Apollo 7 could have been "Phoenix" and MER-A and >MER-B could have been "Marvin" and "Daffy" instead of what some >10-year-old twerp upchucked on a submission letter, we got nuthin' >worthy of market recognition... And they were not at all receptive to my suggestion that Pathfinder be renamed "Big White Massah", and the Sojourner Traveler rover be renamed "Runaway Slave". :-) Pat >And they were not at all receptive to my suggestion that Pathfinder be >renamed "Big White Massah", and the Sojourner Traveler rover be renamed >"Runaway Slave". :-) ...Pat, yore meds needs some reformulatin' agin. Better head down to th' still and fetch another jug. OM Signature"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr > And they were not at all receptive to my suggestion that Pathfinder be > renamed "Big White Massah", and the Sojourner Traveler rover be renamed > "Runaway Slave". :-) Sojourner is a girl, so perhaps a good name would've been "Kizzy": http://www.livejournal.com/users/pathfindress/ >> And they were not at all receptive to my suggestion that Pathfinder be >> renamed "Big White Massah", and the Sojourner Traveler rover be renamed [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >http://www.livejournal.com/users/pathfindress/ ...Or Topsy. with the orbiter being Uncle Tom. (Jeez, we keep this up, and some dipshit's going to claim HORS is nothing more than KKK ROT13'd...) OM Signature"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr >Sojourner is a girl, so perhaps a good name would've been "Kizzy": > >http://www.livejournal.com/users/pathfindress/ I was thinking Eliza....etcetera, etcetera, etcetera....very scientific! :-) The King Of Siam > I was thinking Eliza....etcetera, etcetera, etcetera....very scientific! > :-) > > The King Of Siam Not Eliza as in "Move yer bloomin' arse!" ? > By my reckoning Barbara Morgan has only been waiting six years, as she was working > as a teacher between 1986-98. I could be wrong, but I seem to recall the general sentiment- from parts of NASA as much as the public, that when McAuliff flew, it was "thank god we can check that box off and never think about it again". Not because McAuliff was bad, but because there wasn't a lot of appreciation for the Teacher in Space program, and some in NASA thought it was merely political and got in the way of the "real astronauts". I don't believe that Morgan was supposed to be more than a backup. She's certainly worthy of a flight, and ought to be on the second or third flight, perhaps even sticking around on ISS for a while. But I don't believe she was really expected to get a flight the first time around, and so truly she hasn't been waiting for a flight nearly long enough to approach a most certainly unwanted record. My list of waits over 14 years: Astronaut Wait Date Selected First Launch Date Kadenyuk 21.2 1976-08-23 1997-11-19 7:46:00 PM Lind 19.0 1966-04-04 1985-04-29 4:04:48 PM England 17.9 1967-08-04 1985-07-29 9:07:12 PM Henize 17.9 1967-08-04 1985-07-29 9:07:12 PM McCandless 17.8 1966-04-04 1984-02-03 1:00:00 PM Bobko 16.7 1966-06-30 1983-04-04 6:30:00 PM Polyakov 16.4 1972-03-22 1988-08-29 4:23:00 AM Parker 16.3 1967-08-04 1983-11-28 4:00:00 PM Overmyer 16.3 1966-06-30 1982-11-11 12:19:00 PM Slayton 16.2 1959-04-02 1975-07-15 7:50:00 PM Thornton Bill 16.0 1967-08-04 1983-08-30 6:32:00 AM Hartsfield 15.9 1966-06-30 1982-06-27 3:00:00 PM Peterson 15.7 1967-06-30 1983-04-04 6:30:00 PM Musgrave 15.6 1967-08-04 1983-04-04 6:30:00 PM Lenoir 15.2 1967-08-04 1982-11-11 12:19:00 PM Allen 15.2 1967-08-04 1982-11-11 12:19:00 PM Kizim 15.0 1965-10-28 1980-11-27 2:18:00 PM Crippen 14.7 1966-06-30 1981-04-12 12:00:00 PM Nicollier 14.2 1978-05-01 1992-07-31 1:57:00 PM >My list of waits over 14 years: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Crippen 14.7 1966-06-30 1981-04-12 12:00:00 PM >Nicollier 14.2 1978-05-01 1992-07-31 1:57:00 PM ...And you need to add honorary mention for everyone who ever read _You Will Go To The Moon_. All of us who've read that book have been waiting ever since for our dream deferred to become reality :-( OM Signature"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.