 |
 | 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 / Shuttle / June 2004Gregory C. Johnson named Manager of Launch Integration at KSC
Regarding the following report from KSC: is Mr Johnson still eligible for a flight, despite his new management job? rgds Neil ----------------------------- NASA News National Aeronautics and Space Administration John F. Kennedy Space Center Kennedy Space Center, Florida 32899 AC 321 867-2468 ________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________ Jessica Rye Kennedy Space Center, Fla. June 18, 2004 (Phone: 321/867-2468) RELEASE: No. 41-04 GREGORY C. JOHNSON NAMED MANAGER OF LAUNCH INTEGRATION AT KENNEDY SPACE CENTER Space Shuttle Program Manager Bill Parsons has named Gregory C. Johnson as the Manager of Launch Integration at NASA's Kennedy Space Center, Fla. Johnson assumed his new position June 14. In this capacity, he is responsible for all aspects of Space Shuttle preparation, launch and return of the orbiter to KSC following flight. Johnson joins KSC from NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, where he was selected in 1998 as class leader of the 17th group of NASA Astronauts. His previous assignment was Deputy, Shuttle Operations Branch in the astronaut office. Johnson also served as one of the Astronaut Support Personnel responsible for configuring the orbiter switches prior to launch and strapping astronauts in their seats for liftoff. He also was the astronaut representative for all technical aspects of landing and roll out issues. "Greg's experience, coupled with the unique perspective he brings to KSC from his time in the Astronaut Corps, will be a tremendous asset to the Space Shuttle Program as we return the Shuttle fleet to safe flight," said Parsons. Prior to his acceptance in the Astronaut Corps, Johnson served four years as the Chief of the Maintenance & Engineering Branch responsible for all maintenance and engineering modifications on Johnson Space Center's 44 aircraft. He held previous positions as an aerospace engineer and research pilot at Johnson's Aircraft Operations Division at Ellington Field, a T-38 instructor, functional check flight and examiner pilot, Gulfstream I aircraft commander, WB-57 high altitude research pilot and KC-135 co-pilot. "I could not be more pleased that Greg has joined my team," said Denny Kross, Space Shuttle Deputy Program Manager at KSC. "His proven leadership style and extensive knowledge of the inner workings of the orbiter systems is invaluable as he oversees the day-to-day operations of preparing the Shuttles for safe missions." Johnson is the recipient of numerous awards and medals, including the NASA James A. Korkowski Excellence in Achievement Award, VA-128 Attack Pilot of the Year, Carrier Airwing Fifteen and Airwing Fourteen Top Ten Tailhook Pilot, two Navy Meritorious Service Medals, three Navy Commendation Medals, the Navy Achievement Medal, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, and Humanitarian Service Medal. Formerly of Seattle, Wash., Johnson holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Aerospace Engineering from the University of Washington, and is a graduate of the U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School. >Regarding the following report from KSC: is Mr Johnson still eligible for a >flight, despite his new management job? Several rookie astronauts have gotten management positions in the past. Alan Bean for example was placed in charge of Apollo Applications to straighten the program up because he was highly thought of by Deke Slayton...and he hadn't flown yet. The fact that he's gotten this kind of position probably means that Johnson will probably be one of the lucky guys to get assigned as pilot to one of the remaining Shuttle flights down the road. -A.L. > Regarding the following report from KSC: is Mr Johnson still eligible for a > flight, despite his new management job? Jim Halsell had that job for awhile, and was assigned to STS-120.  SignatureThis is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | Just because something It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | is possible, doesn't No person, none, care | and it will reach me | mean it can happen << Regarding the following report from KSC: is Mr Johnson still eligible for a flight, despite his new management job? >> He's only going down to KSC for a year. Andy "Gee, I thought we'd be a lot higher at MECO!" [Steve Hawley, STS 41-D pad abort, 1984] From Andy (aseed@aol): > << Regarding the following report from KSC: is Mr Johnson still eligible for a > flight, despite his new management job? >> > > He's only going down to KSC for a year. I don't know where you got that "fact" from. It's not too hard to read between the lines in that press release. One thing that is clear from publicly available facts is that it is unprecedented for an astronaut to get reassigned like this before ever flying a single flight. (Notice that Alan Bean was not "moved on" to a job away from Houston.) ~ CT >tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com (Stuf4) >I don't know where you got that "fact" from. I'd trust any information from Andy long before I'd trust anything from you. >It's not too hard to read between the lines in that press release. >One thing that is clear from publicly available facts is that it is >unprecedented for an astronaut to get reassigned like this before ever >flying a single flight. When one relies solely on "publicly available facts" (as you do), one has a very poor understandle of the full picture of a story (as you always do). It only gives you half the picture (which is what you always present). DF From Dave Fowler: > >tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com (Stuf4) > > >I don't know where you got that "fact" from. > > I'd trust any information from Andy long before I'd trust anything from you. I prefer to avoid reliance on trust when presenting info. If information is solidly presented with verifiable references, this reduces any need to trust the person presenting the info. (This goes back to points made in the recent 'trust'/'verify' thread about Reagan. Trust and verification have an inverse relationship.) > >It's not too hard to read between the lines in that press release. > >One thing that is clear from publicly available facts is that it is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > very poor understandle of the full picture of a story (as you always do). It > only gives you half the picture (which is what you always present). For this particular topic, I agree that the whole picture is not being presented. This is quite often the case for press releases. The very reason why NASA has a public affairs office is so that only the picture they want you to see gets presented. This is similar to the reason why corporations have marketing divisions. If there was no need for "manual processing" of the straight facts, then public relations and advertisement could be handled by the engineers themselves (or astronauts, in this case). ~ CT << I don't know where you got that "fact" from. >> Hmm, let's see, I got that "fact" straight from the horse's mouth. That horse's name was...wait for it.....Gregory C. Johnson! He, of course, got that "fact" from his boss, Rommel. Who got it from his boss....shall I go on? Now, I don't recall saying anything like "and after that one year x y z will happen." I stated a simple fact, and you can make whatever presumptions you like about why he's going, or what will happen afterwards, but that doesn't change my "facts." How do you like them apples? << One thing that is clear from publicly available facts is that it is unprecedented for an astronaut to get reassigned like this before ever flying a single flight. What is also clear is that it is unprecedented to have so many unflown astronauts, and so few flights to fly 'em on. Make of it what you will. Andy "Gee, I thought we'd be a lot higher at MECO!" [Steve Hawley, STS 41-D pad abort, 1984] If it turns out that Mr Johnson is still eligibile for a flight, that'd make him fairly unusual among pilot-astronauts. He's a civilian, though ex-Navy it seems. From Andy (aseed@aol): > << I don't know where you got that "fact" from. >> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > like about why he's going, or what will happen afterwards, but that doesn't > change my "facts." How do you like them apples? I see your apples as having an orange tinge to them. You were taking the intent for a future event and presenting it as fact. The only person who knows for a fact how long Greg Johnson is planning to be at KSC is Greg Johnson. I prefer to keep straight the distinction between facts and hearsay. An example of a simple fact would be: "He told me that he's only going down to KSC for a year." Or, "Rommel told me that Greg was only going down to KSC for a year." Subtle but important distinction versus taking what you hear people say and then passing it off as fact. Illustration of how hearsay is not fact: Fact: I heard Mike Bloomfield say that he is going to be the next Athletic Director at USAFA. Non-fact presented as fact: Mike Bloomfield will be the next Athletic Director at USAFA. Fact: Mike Bloomfield is not at USAFA. He is not their Athletic Director. That assignment has been terminated. > << One thing that is clear from publicly available facts is that it is > unprecedented for an astronaut to get reassigned like this before ever flying a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What is also clear is that it is unprecedented to have so many unflown > astronauts, and so few flights to fly 'em on. Make of it what you will. I agree that those points are certainly a factor. (I also note that Mike Bloomfield had an open door at JSC to walk back into after the Air Force Academy assignment got turned off.) ~ CT <<You were taking the intent for a future event and presenting it as fact. The only person who knows for a fact how long Greg Johnson is planning to be at KSC is Greg Johnson>> I'll repeat, in case you missed it: Hmm, let's see, I got that "fact" straight from the horse's mouth. That horse's name was...wait for it.....Gregory C. Johnson! So, by your own definition, I've presented you with a fact about how long RayJ plans to be/will be at KSC. I'll presume that RayJ is more in tune with the facts surrounding his deployment to KSC than you are. I'll accept his word as fact. If you don't want to, that's your issue to deeal with. BTW, if you are going to complain about my presentation of the facts as they are known to the principals involved, please refrain from relating those facts to, and then complaining about their relationship to, suppositions not made by me. To whit: <<I don't know where you got that "fact" from. It's not too hard to read between the lines in that press release. One thing that is clear from publicly available facts is that it is unprecedented for an astronaut to get reassigned like this before ever flying a single flight.>> Note, once again, that I made no statements about what would happen to RayJ once his assignment is complete. Andy "Gee, I thought we'd be a lot higher at MECO!" [Steve Hawley, STS 41-D pad abort, 1984] From Andy (aseed@aol): > I'll presume that RayJ is more in tune with the facts surrounding his > deployment to KSC than you are. I'll accept his word as fact. If you don't want > to, that's your issue to deeal with. If you are the one with a mistaken understanding then I would not see that as my issue to deal with. I hope you are open to the possibility that your understanding is not complete. You and I have been through this type of disconnect before on other topics. > BTW, if you are going to complain about my presentation of the facts as they > are known to the principals involved, please refrain from relating those facts [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > unprecedented for an astronaut to get reassigned like this before ever flying a > single flight.>> My "suppositions" were regarding to the original press release. It was not about your subsequent comment (which I clearly see as hearsay and you keep referring to as fact). > Note, once again, that I made no statements about what would happen to RayJ > once his assignment is complete. Your statement communicated that he would be leaving KSC after spending one year there. Throughout all this, there is a noticeable absence of explantion why an unflown pilot is leaving, while veteran commanders are kept around. From Andy (aseed@aol): > I'll presume that RayJ is more in tune with the facts surrounding his > deployment to KSC than you are. I'll accept his word as fact. If you don't want > to, that's your issue to deeal with. If you are the one with a mistaken understanding then I would not see that as my issue to deal with. I hope you are open to the possibility that your understanding is not complete. You and I have been through this type of disconnect before on other topics. > BTW, if you are going to complain about my presentation of the facts as they > are known to the principals involved, please refrain from relating those facts > to, and then complaining about their relationship to, suppositions not made by > me. <snip> (I do not follow what you are referring to with that last part.) > Note, once again, that I made no statements about what would happen to RayJ > once his assignment is complete. Your statement communicated that he would be leaving KSC after spending one year there. ~ CT >tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com (Stuf4) >If you are the one with a mistaken understanding then I would not see >that as my issue to deal with. There it is folks.... Stuffie shows his incredible arrogance once again, refuses to EVER admit that he's even vaguely incorrect (once again), and most of all, again shows his total disconnect from reality, and inability to grasp even the obvious facts that have been generously placed at his feet. >I hope you are open to the possibility that your understanding is not >complete. Your understanding is NEVER complete, yet you never own up to it. >It was not about your subsequent comment (which I clearly see as >hearsay and you keep referring to as fact). No, it's what those of us who are reasonable grown-ups call a "primary source". Can you say "primary source", Stuffie? Your disregard for facts, thick-headedness, complete moral and intellectual dishonesty and unrivaled arrogance truly blows me away. How DO you live with yourself? DF > >tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com (Stuf4) > > >If you are the one with a mistaken understanding then I would not see > >that as my issue to deal with. Dave, I think Stuffie is evidencing signs of usenet oppression! I'm aghast! > There it is folks.... Stuffie shows his incredible arrogance once again, > refuses to EVER admit that he's even vaguely incorrect (once again), and most > of all, again shows his total disconnect from reality, and inability to grasp > even the obvious facts that have been generously placed at his feet. Well, yes. That's why I gave up on him some time ago (during the "definition of zero gravity" fiasco some time back). > >I hope you are open to the possibility that your understanding is not > >complete. > > Your understanding is NEVER complete, yet you never own up to it. Of course he/she/it doesn't. See above. > >It was not about your subsequent comment (which I clearly see as > >hearsay and you keep referring to as fact). "Hearsay" has a particular definition; I wonder if Stuffie knows what that definition is? > No, it's what those of us who are reasonable grown-ups call a "primary > source". > Can you say "primary source", Stuffie? Apparently not. > Your disregard for facts, thick-headedness, complete moral and intellectual > dishonesty and unrivaled arrogance truly blows me away. > > How DO you live with yourself? Killfile him/her/it and at least you won't have to. :-) SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer Columbia Loss FAQ: <http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html> > > >tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com (Stuf4) > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Well, yes. That's why I gave up on him some time ago (during the > "definition of zero gravity" fiasco some time back). What is the deal with Stuffie, anyhow? Is he an anti-US troll as I've said recently? From Scott Kozel: > > > >tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com (Stuf4) > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > of all, again shows his total disconnect from reality, and inability to grasp > > > even the obvious facts that have been generously placed at his feet. I'm not sure what it is that you see as "generous". Notice that the original question that Andy was responding to is still an open question. Absolutely nothing was stated with regards to eligibility of future assignment. Should Andy choose to look further into the matter, he may find that his assumptions were in error. > > Well, yes. That's why I gave up on him some time ago (during the > > "definition of zero gravity" fiasco some time back). I would expect a person who has been an aerospace engineer to know about the difference between -zero gravity- and -zero g-. I would expect a person who has earned a J.D. to know the difference between a -fact- and -hearsay-. Even without any special background, to fail to recognize the difference in meaning of such terms after they have been precisely explained removes -ignorance- as the reason for the disagreement. > What is the deal with Stuffie, anyhow? Is he an anti-US troll as I've > said recently? The technique I like to use to form my own opinion about someone is just that: Form my own opinion about them. ~ CT >tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com (Stuf4) I won't bother to to repeat your worthless replies here, but suffice it to say, you once again, avoided any responsibility, falsely put it upon others, and again showed your complete and utter lack of moral and intellectual honestly. You are pathetic. DF << Notice that the original question that Andy was responding to is still an open question. Absolutely nothing was stated with regards to eligibility of future assignment. >> Normally, I wouldn't bother folks with questions related to any discussions that appear on this, or any other, NG, but in the course of other activities, I brought the question up with Rommel (who, as you may know, is the guy who makes these kinds of decisions....for the time being, anyway). His response: RayJ is eligible for future assignment. << Should Andy choose to look further into the matter, he may find that his assumptions were in error >> My "assumptions" are no more in error than yours. The difference between us is that I get my information directly from the parties involved. You get yours from a crystal ball. You have every right, of course, to ask questions and make assumptions based on what you read, but I hope you will resist claiming that your opinions are fact (which you come close to doing with this last statement of yours). I"m happy to agree to disagree on the possible outcomes of RayJ's tenure at KSC, but I'm not going to continue to waste time on responding to sanctimonious accusations of the "errors of my assumptions." I'll just point out that Kevin Ford, an unflown astronaut, was sent to Russia as DOR, and he also remains eligible for assignment. I'll also point out that Chris Hadfield served as DOR, despite the fact that he isn't a U.S. astronaut. So, you see, CT, things may happen that have never happened before, but that doesn't mean we should ascribe to these events any particularly sinister meaning. I'm done debating this issue with you. Andy "Gee, I thought we'd be a lot higher at MECO!" [Steve Hawley, STS 41-D pad abort, 1984] From Andy (aseed@aol): > << Notice that the original question that Andy was responding to is still an > open question. Absolutely nothing was stated with regards to eligibility of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > these kinds of decisions....for the time being, anyway). His response: RayJ is > eligible for future assignment. That certainly carries a lot of weight. Thank you. (It's a lot easier for a reader to weight the significance of a statement when it is presented in context rather than saying something like, "yes, he is eligible", with no indication of where the info came from.) > << Should Andy choose to look further into the matter, he may find that his > assumptions were in error >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > KSC, but I'm not going to continue to waste time on responding to sanctimonious > accusations of the "errors of my assumptions." I will let Mike Bloomfield's recent re/de-assignment stand as an example of how easy it is to draw erroneous conclusions about such things. (I expect that we can agree that all relevant facts in *that* case have not been made public.) > I'll just point out that Kevin Ford, an unflown astronaut, was sent to Russia > as DOR, and he also remains eligible for assignment. I'll also point out that > Chris Hadfield served as DOR, despite the fact that he isn't a U.S. astronaut. > So, you see, CT, things may happen that have never happened before, but that > doesn't mean we should ascribe to these events any particularly sinister > meaning. Leaving the astronaut corps has quite often happened as a decision made from a complex set of factors. Many times the decision is made by the astronaut. Other times the decision is made *for* the astronaut. In either case, simple answers to simple questions can lead to the painting of a 1-dimensional picture. Even for the cases where the simple answer is accurate, it leaves out fuller aspects as to why the change happened. Regarding Russia DOR assignment, that has long been a standard rotation. Considering how enthusiastic veteran astronauts have been about such a "choice assignment", I find little cause for surprise that the slot has worked its way down to a rookie. > I'm done debating this issue with you. I myself don't have anything more to add at this time. ~ CT From Scott Kozel: > > > >tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com (Stuf4) > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > of all, again shows his total disconnect from reality, and inability to grasp > > > even the obvious facts that have been generously placed at his feet. I'm not sure what it is that you see as "generous". ======================================================================== CORRECTION: I'm not sure what it is that is seen as "generous". ======================================================================== (I realize that the words I am responding to were not authored by Scott.) ~ CT |
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
|
©2008 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.