Jim Oberg debunks it:

In late 1958, as NASA begin defining how to select astronauts, President Eisenhower directed that test pilots be the pool from which candidates were selected. The actual flight experience of Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions in hindsight validated that standard. Because of the intimate integration of the pilot in the spacecraft’s control system (unlike the automated Soviet space vehicles that were less dependent on pilot intervention during malfunctions), astronauts on several occasions were able to safely complete missions that, on autopilot, would have led to failure and death.

That was the historical context, warts and all, of the decision to select astronauts exclusively from among test pilots initially, and supersonic jet pilots subsequently—a decision with the unintended consequence of ruling out the participation of women. To have done differently, on purpose, for symbolic reasons, would have been to add immeasurable (but arguably non-zero) hazards to a project that was generally considered already almost too hazardous to perform in any case. Whenever NASA has unconsciously relaxed safety standards, disasters have followed, from Apollo 1 to Challenger to Columbia.

Avoiding confrontation with this rationale and blaming it all on male ego and sexism has denied the university’s intellectual community—and the news media’s readers—the useful opportunity to consider which of the two approaches to women’s access to spaceflight (the American or the Soviet one) produced the greatest long-lasting “good”. By what criteria should a national approach to overcome historical cultural exclusion and attain an “adequate” level of gender-independent access be deemed to have succeeded? This is a serious question worthy of significant national discussion and debate, but not a hint of the question appears in the recent coverage.

I could have categorized this as media criticism as well, because that's what it is. The reality is that, right or wrong, NASA wanted seasoned test pilots for its first human space flights. The other reality was that, in the late 1950s, women didn't do that.

It's sad that so many of them, like Wally Funk, feel that they were cheated, perhaps even justifiably, but that's less a result of unfairness as perhaps unreasonable expectations, or being misled. One of the benefits of making space activities private is that much of the political correctness and general politics of astronaut selection will go away, and people who are physically capable (which is most people) will be able to go without getting the approval of some government functionary.

If you liked my article on debunking Mercury-13 myths, you might want to vote for it
on this reader survey link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/readerarticles/?period=all

Are people really hung up on the fact that 40 years ago all of our astronauts were men? Given the fact that women have had astronautic roles in the space program for the last 25 years or so, it really seems petty and unconstructive.

Oh, and good point about how privatizing makes most of this irrelevent anyway, Rand.

Are people really hung up on the fact that 40 years ago all of our astronauts were men?

Until the New Left of the '60s, and their Baby Boomer "useful idiots" die off, unfortunately, the answer is "Yes". (And I say that as someone about to hit the semicentennial mark.)

Now we have to debunk Jim's debunking.

The first solicitation for "research astronauts" (as they were originally called) did not anticipate that any flying skills would be required. Supersonic jet pilots were invited to apply, but so were balloon pilots, radio operators, submarine crew members, and other technical specialists who had no flying experience. Simply working in a scientific laboratory was considered sufficient.

Even at that point, however, only males were invited to apply. This was before Eisenhower became involved in the selection process, so blaming the requirement on him is incorrect. The NACA has decided they didn't want women before they decided they wanted test pilots.

Second, at the time the Mercury astronauts were selected, designers did not expect (or want) "occupants" to have control over the vehicle. That changed later, at the insistance of the astronauts themselves, but since the changes were not anticipated they could not have had any influence on the original selection. Most sources suggest Eisenhower wanted test pilots not for their skills, but because they had already been screened and approved for classified information.

Contrary to Jim's Russian bashing, Mercury was highly automated, just like its Russian counterpart. It was designed to be (and was) flown by chimpanzees, with male astronauts as a mere optional upgrade. Only female humans were excluded.

Finally, while it may be true that there were no female test pilots in the 1950's, one must ask why that was the case. In the 1930's, when high-performance flight test was often a private rather than government undertaking, there were a number of female test pilots. Pancho Barnes was not unique. That changed during World War II when the government took over.

Then, of course, there's John Glenn's second flight into space. I would be interested to hear an explanation of why he was more qualified than Wally Funk at that point. :-)

In the 1930's, when high-performance flight test was often a private rather than government undertaking, there were a number of female test pilots...That changed during World War II when the government took over.

That seems to bolster Rand's claim that privatization erases gender-based barriers to space.

Either way, this is all academic. American women have been riding into space with NASA for nearly a quarter of a century. One could argue the merits of our past governmental policies, but I'm not sure how gender exclusions early in the space program is really relevent today.

Anyone that doesn’t believe that test pilots were, and still are the right choice for spacecraft pilots needs to read the story of Gemini VIII. Malfunctions happen and when they do you want Neil Armstrong and Dave Scott in the spacecraft not Joe or Josephine average. Whoever made that decision made the right one.

> One could argue the merits of our past governmental policies, but
> I'm not sure how gender exclusions early in the space program is really
> relevent today.

It's relevant because some still argue that the basis of US space policy should be "Apollo on Steroids," which would be another exclusive club. Even if women have the same chance of being selected as men do this time, that will be a very small improvement. There will be more human beings eaten by sharks or hit by lightning than flying on Orion capsules.

It's relevant because some still argue that the basis of US space policy should be "Apollo on Steroids," which would be another exclusive club. Even if women have the same chance of being selected as men do this time, that will be a very small improvement. There will be more human beings eaten by sharks or hit by lightning than flying on Orion capsules.

Posted by Edward Wright at May 14, 2007 01:22 PM

Ok, I think I see your point. As long as space access is controlled by the gov't, those going will be part of a very exclusive club.

As I mentioned in my previous post that seems to bolster Rand's suggestion that private space access destroys such barriers. I assume you agree with Rand on this. Is that correct?

Whoops!!! That last post (#8) was mine.

Now I have going through my head,
"Ride, Sally, Ride!"

Thanks for the earworm. I decided to pass it on.
[evil grin]

seems to bolster Rand's suggestion that private space access destroys such barriers. I assume you agree with Rand on this. Is that correct?

Yes, exactly.

Jim says that academia and the news media should "consider which of the two approaches to women’s access to spaceflight (the American or the Soviet one) produced the greatest long-lasting 'good'."

Debating whether our socialists are better than their socialists misses the point entirely. Neither gave women (or men) any significant access to spaceflight. To show the magnitude of their failure: in 1985, Jim's wife wrote a book called "Spacefarers of the '80s and '90s: The Next Thousand People in Space."

NASA didn't manage to fly 1000 people in the 80's and 90's, and if they go the Orion route, they probably won't manage to fly 1000 people in the next 50 years.

Real access to space will only come from a new approach.

Good discussions, and lots to mull over, special gratitude to Ed Wright for his thoughtful critiques. One immediate comment: Mercury may have been originally built to run on autopilot, but then, why was a window added [NOT as fictionalized in the movie, fer shoor]? And beyond the very first (and simplest) missions, how many of the MA-6, 7, 8, and 9 missions would have actually been completed on autopilot alone?

Do you suppose that the Mercury 13 were dismissed from space flight had less to do with the qualifications of those women and more to do with a cultural bias against exposing women to the risk of violent death?

Much has been made of the Mercury being largely automated that even a member of genus Pan could "operate" it. On the other hand, a rocket launch was, and still remains, a high-risk affair, and that an astronout could be lost was very much part of the expert as well as public assessment.

Also noted is that research test pilots were only one of several choices of whom to fly into space. Of the groups who routinely risked violent death, the test pilots were reputed to facing it with the most elan -- Tom Wolfe's "Right Stuff."

Tom Wolfe is noted for his neologisms, and "the right stuff" is perhaps his most popular, although Yeager has repeatedly protested that he doesn't know what Wolfe is talking about and Yeager attributes his success to "hard work" and "intense preparation."

To me, "the right stuff" is having the risk of violent death as part of your job description but maintaining that your ability to stay alive is based on a mythology of having some manner of control over your destiny in the form of having the right skill, applied at the right moment.

The central thesis of "The Right Stuff" is that while the test pilot at least had the myth of being able to cheat death if he was sufficiently skilled at operating the numerous controls and switches in the aircraft, the astronout in the automated Mercury was regarded as a passive passenger -- what was the purpose in risking death in that?

The outcome of "The Right Stuff" was that the "research subjects took over the experiment" -- by choosing test pilots, they insisted on being test pilots and having manual controls, and the mythology has developed of skilled pilot-astronauts saving their lives, spacecraft, and mission.

For every David Scott and Neil Armstrong, there has been a Challenger and a Columbia. With Challenger, no amount of Right Stuff quick-wit reaction and operation of controls would have made a difference. With Columbia, there was some sense of the tension between astronaut as test-pilot hero and astronaut as human subject.

NASA engineers as much as knew they had a problem with Columbia, but they operated in "don't scare the passengers mode" and hoped for the best on reentry. They could have gone for heroics such as a dangerous space walk to inspect and attempt repair of the damage or a possible second-shuttle space rescue. There was no guarantee that heroic measures would have worked, but they would have been in the "right stuff" tradition, even if they failed.

One question? Who here reads the seat card, studies the exit door operation instructions, notes the exit locations, and pays any attention to the oxygen mask demonstration? If you do those things, you are participating in the "right stuff" myth that you have some influence of your safety in an airplane; most people don't do any of those things owing to a fatalistic outlook on airplane travel -- that airplane travel is generally safe, but in the event of an accident, one is Jet A deep fry.

I'm a private pilot with almost 500 hours of experience. Even with my instrument rating, that doesn't even remotely come close to what a fighter pilot with the same number of hours has experienced. That's the fallacy of comparing the civilian piloting experience of the Mercury 13 against the Original Seven.

Back in the 1950s, hundreds of American military aircrew members were killed every year in crashes. Those were very dangerous days - the planes were much more dangerous than modern ones and there were many more of them. The best of those pilots were selected to become test pilots where their chances of dying were probably even greater than of line pilots. They were men who kept their wits under extreme pressure. Yes, they had security clearances but many of them were also engineers. That mixture of clarity under pressure and technical competence was vital during the early days of spaceflight.

Gordon Cooper's Mercury flight showed the folly of thinking that automated systems could handle everything back then. By the time he splashed down, just about all of those automated systems had failed. Armstrong and Scott had to think quickly and completely on their own as their spacecraft was spinning so rapidly that they were close to passing out. Wally Shirrah kept his cool and didn't eject when his Gemini mission failed to lift off. Pete Conrad kept his cool and didn't abort after lightning struck Apollo 12 shortly after launch, causing just about every warning system to alarm. Armstrong cooly took over control of the LM when he saw that the automated system was guiding it towards a boulder-strewn crater. He managed to land with well under 30 seconds of propellant remaining. All of these are but a few examples of coolness under stress that those early astronauts displayed.

> that doesn't even remotely come close to what a fighter pilot with the same
> number of hours has experienced. That's the fallacy of comparing the civilian
> piloting experience of the Mercury 13 against the Original Seven.

So, how many hundreds of hours do you think Ham and Able had in high-performance aircraft?

That's the fallacy of comparing a Mercury capsule to a jet fighter.

Test pilot skills would be relevant if you were talking about the X-15, DynaSoar, or even Gemini, but Mercury was "Spam in a can."

A better comparison for Mercury would be an aircraft escape capsule or ejection seat. Astronauts were "shot" into space and crashlanded in the ocean. The best test pilots were told not to apply for it because there was no flying involved.

> That mixture of clarity under pressure and technical competence was
> vital during the early days of spaceflight.

So, do you believe the Mercury 13 women had less clarity under pressure and technical competence than the astronauts at the top of the flight order (Ham and Able)?

Nobody would have cared about the deaths of animals during spaceflight. Animals do not possess the same moral status as human beings. Ham and Able, for the purpose of the exercise, are animals.

Animals do not possess the same moral status as human beings. Ham and Able, for the purpose of the exercise, are animals.

That's a different argument. No one has said (publicly at least) that the Mercury 13 were not allowed to fly because it would have been immoral to allow women to risk their lives. I suspect that was the real thinking behind the decision, but it's not what NASA claimed then or now. If it was, they ought to say so, rather than asking people to believe that a woman could not fly a vehicle designed to be flown by a chimp.

A more significant question is why NASA designed a rocket that was so dangerous they considered it immoral for a human being of either sex to make the first flight. Rockets like the X-15 never fell into that category (which is why the X-15 pilots didn't think much of Mercury).