Re: Military service and the astronaut Corps

From: Ami Silberman (silber_at_mitre.org)
Date: 06/16/04 

Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 15:30:50 -0400

"Stuf4" <tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d3af8584.0406152145.2b4337de@posting.google.com...
> From Ami:
> > "Stuf4" <tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com> wrote
> > > From Ami Silberman:
> > > > "Stuf4" <tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com> wrote
>
> > > NASA was created as a civilian agency. Its nature was national
> > > defense. They owned and operated lots of ICBM boosters. There are
> > > hundreds of indicators that have been presented to this forum. The
> > > single most direct that I know of is from the private words of JFK
> > > where he stated point blank that the sole justification for funding
> > > Apollo was because of the "defense implications".
> > >
> > > For whatever reason you snipped that reference without comment.
>
> > It was irrelevent. The federal highway system was originally funded for
its
> > defense implications, but that doesn't make it a military road, nor
> > toll-collectors on toll portions of it military personel.
>
> We are in agreement that NASA was not a military agency. But unlike
> your highway analogy, notice that NASA *did* have many military
> personnel.
>
We are? I was pretty sure that you were arguing otherwise.
> > And NASA did not
> > own or operate a single ICBM booster. They owned and operated boosters
which
> > had been developed as boosters for ICBMs, but were modified for manned
and
> > unmanned space missions.
>
> Both the weaponized ICBM and the Mercury booster carried the exact
> same Air Force designation:
>
> Atlas-D.
>
But there were differences between the two versions.
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/launch/atlas.htm says that the
man-rated ones were the Atlas LV-3B variant, which was the first operational
version of the Atlas ICBM, but in 1960 the AF moved to the CGM-16D model.
http://www.simnasa.org/mercury/launch_vehicles.html says that "Extensive
redesign of several systems was needed in order to "man rate" this missile".

> NASA ordered the Atlas and the Titan boosters straight from the Air
> Force, not the contractors. I don't know what Atlas modifications you
> are referring to, but in the case of the Titan, minor modifications
> (for pogo suppression, etc) could actually be used by the Air Force as
> improvements to future versions of the ICBM.
>
Sure, were they? I'm not saying that there wasn't a very close
co-development cycle on the Atlas and the Titan II, but that co-development
cycle was broken for the Saturn and various Delta, Centaur etc. planetary
probe launchers.
> (And to avoid an extremely narrow focus, I'll point out that ICBM
> refers to a ballistic missile that has intercontinental range. The
> Air Force put nukes on top. NASA put astronauts there.)
>
> > I'm sure that civilian agencies used plenty of
> > Jeeps, which were originally military vehicles. That doesn't mean that
those
> > agencies were militarized.
>
> I consider it to be a plain fact that NASA was militarized. Military
> pilots flying on top of military rockets. Those boosters even had Air
> Force serial numbers.
>
> The plan to launch test pilots into space atop Redstone rockets and
> Atlas rockets existed before NASA ever came into existence. They were
> Army and Air Force programs. NASA simply took over.
>
Sure, but I don't think that "militarized" means what you think it does. It
means "taken over by the military", or "issued arms". If anything, NASA
"civilianized" military officers by including them in a civilian agency.

> > NASA was an important part of the cold war, which, broadly speaking, was
> > about defending the American way of life. Not everything involved in
doing
> > so was military. NASA utilized experienced military personel, rented
space
> > from the Air Force, and used equipment developed originally for the
> > military. They did not, however, participate in deterence, force
projection,
> > nor (until the shuttle) military development.
>
> No? You might be interested in looking at this Vintage NORAD
> Slideshow that was posted to the forum a couple of years ago. I'll
> cut straight to a two slide sequence:
>
> http://www.pinetreeline.org/slides/slide12.html
> http://www.pinetreeline.org/slides/slide13.html
>
> The first slide is of nuclear annihilation of America. The second
> slide shows the orbital groundtracks of Vostok 3 and 4. The message
> is crystal clear:
>
> Launches of ICBMs with human payloads communicates nuclear destructive
> capability (as Sputnik did years before).
>
Yes, true. I am more or less in agreement with you that the initial manned
programs of both the USSR and the USA both communicated military nuances --
particularly the Vostok, Mercury, and Salyut programs. (And the USSR
actually had purely military programs such as the Almaz.) I just think that
this ended with the start of Apollo. The Saturn was not a launch vehicle
with any real military purpose, and there was no intent for it to launch
military payloads. (Unlike the Titan III, for example.)
> > They even handed off
> > development of MOL to the Air Force. The military role of NASA (as
opposed
> > to the role of the military in NASA) was primarily as a technology
> > demonstrator. It showed that the US had the technological superiority
over
> > the Soviet Union, and did so in an open manner. It had the military
> > implications that if space were to become directly militarized, the US
would
> > be in a better position than the Soviets to do so.
>
> I agree with that.
>
> > > Take a look at those pictures of astronauts standing on the Moon
> > > saluting the flag. They are doing so out of habit, because they are
> > > active duty military personnel.
> > >
> >
(http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=apol
> > lo+salute)
>
> > This is never mentioned in the Apollo Surface Journal. Do you have a
> > citation for anyone stating that the salute was done out of habit? IIRC,
at
> > least one astronaut said that he did so because it seemed the correct
thing
> > to do. Remember, this was a time when patriotism was expressed quite
openly.
>
> My point was that military personnel are habitually trained to salute.
> I don't see it as a controversial statement (if you want, you can put
> the two together and surmise that it "seemed the correct thing to do"
> because of the habit).
>
OK, but the fact that they did so doesn't seem to buttress the argument that
NASA was a militarized operation any more than just the fact that they were
military officers. BTW, I've been in DoD facilities that were "no hat, no
salute" areas. This doesn't mean that they were "civilian" facilities.
...
> > > * Anyone who maintains that NASA is non-military has completely missed
> > > the very essence of NASA. *
> > >
> > > It was about national defense in 1958. It is still about national
> > > defense today. Eisenhower created it to consolidate key military
> > > space programs. JFK hammers the point that it was funded as a defense
> > > program. Reagan repeats that theme in his 1982 space policy.
>
> > Anything more recent? It was about national defense (satellite recon) in
the
> > late 50s. It was about technology demonstration and possible defense
> > applications in JFKs day (but it was not funded by the DoD.) Reagan was
> > pushing the shuttle as a vital carrier for military payloads, including
SDI.
>
> Those are three solid points. More recent? It all seemed downhill
> from Reagan. But if we look hard enough, I'm sure we'd find
> something.
>
Part of national defense does not mean military. There are plenty of parts
of the government which are, in part, a part of national defense (such as
the CDC) which are nevertheless civilian. Some of these even have military
officers who are attached to them. NASA had a heavy military presence
because those military officers had the required skills that NASA needed.
Their secondment or transfer was negotiated among the stakeholders.
> > It was never the essence of the planetary science portion of NASA, and
it is
> > very arguable whether the manned program was more than part-time
dedicated
> > to defense needs. As an artifact of history (the cold war), NASA was
> > originally staffed with many active duty defense people, and people who
had
> > worked for the services, because they had the experience, and the
security
> > clearances. (Just because something is civilian doesn't mean that it
doesn't
> > require security.)
>
> Security clearances aren't all that hard to get for people who walk in
> off the street. Even Bill Clinton can get one! I've never taken much
> stock in that explanation for why test pilots were chosen.
>
I believe that they were much more difficult to get during the 60s. Also,
the delay (at least today) until final approval is over a year. Another
issue was that, unlike many DoD or miltiary jobs which require a clearance
to continue, it was felt that the astronaut candidates needed clearances to
participate in the initial screening.
> > > If you want to know why today NASA is dying, it is because it is no
> > > longer needed in this defense role. The threat has changed. As Ike
> > > melded the NACA with DoD to meet the threat in 1958, we may see Bush
> > > decide to meld the FAA with DoD to meet the threats of today. That's
> > > what the Department of Homeland Security reorg was all about. It is
> > > "today's NASA". 9-11 is "today's Sputnik".
>
> > NACA became part of the DoD? That's news to me. There are a lot of
> > agreements between the DoD and NASA, but that doesn't mean NASA is part
of
> > the DoD. Where in
> > http://www.defenselink.mil/odam/omp/pubs/GuideBook/Pdf/DoD.PDF, which is
the
> > organization of the DoD, is NASA? It's not a command, an agency,
anywhere.
>
> In an attempt to clear up this disconnect, I'll go back and be more
> explicit:
>
> "Ike melded the NACA to *parts* of DoD..."
>
> (Take the case of JPL and Redstone getting broken away from the Army
> and absorbed by NASA as two examples.)
>
Yes, but he was taking parts of the DoD and giving them to NASA. That seems
to me that part of the DoD became parts of NASA. The biggest case of the
opposite would have occured had shuttles actually been launched from
Vandenberg under AF control.
> > > Is anyone still confused? I'll defer to LaDonna's excellent statement
> > > that this whole subthread sprouted off of:
> > >
> > > "...surely with the news coverage of the
> > > past week you have heard of the "Cold War?" What do you think the
> > > race to the Moon was all about?"
>
> > That still doesn't make everything involved with the Cold War part of
the
> > defense establishment, the military, or the DoD.
>
> What happened is that there was so much focus on the cheerleader
> aspects of the space program, the public lost sight of it's primary
> reason for being funded. If a poll taken today were to state- Check
> off the following agencies that were part of the Cold War defense
> establishment:
>
> __ Air Force
> __ Atomic Energy Commission
> __ Navy
> __ NASA
> __ Army
> __ CIA
>
>
> ...I expect that the vast majority would not include NASA.
>
At least as of today, only the Army and the Davy are defense agencies. The
others are all involved in national defense to a greater or lesser extent,
but are not under control of the DoD. For example, the CIA is under the
State Department.

> I would even guess that several of the moonwalkers themselves got so
> wrapped up into the PR aspects that they lost contact with the sole
> justification that JFK had to remind Jim Webb about.
>
Most of the moonwalkers hadn't even been in NASA when JFK was alive. During
that period, six years was a long period of time. I doubt that any of the
astronauts were explicitly aware of JFK's justification. They were aware
that they were participating in operations in the national interest.

> A question that I would be very intrigued to hear them field is, "What
> connection do you see between Apollo and the nuclear arms race?"
>
I would be interested in seeing what they would say about that as well. The
results are likely to be suprising to one or the other of us.

Loading