The purpose of the Educator Astronaut is to "help lead the Agency in the
development of new ways to connect space exploration with the classroom,
and to inspire the next generation of explorers." According to
http://edspace.nasa.gov/faq/faq.html , they will "experience something
unique that they can use to engage students and to inspire them to
consider a career in science, technology, engineering and mathematics."
Currently, 3-6 educator astronaut candidates will be selected to be
among the next Astronaut Candidate group.
Indeed, NASA lists Educational Excellence as one of its contributions to
National Priorities within its Strategic Roadmap. In this
self-proclaimed role, some specific actions NASA is taking (under
various categories) include
-Produce teaching tools (cat: Educational Technology)
-Coordinate and articulate student programs (cat: Student Support)
-Provide professional development in standards-led education (cat:
Support of Systemic Improvement)
See "The Role of Education in NASA's Strategic Plan" at
http://education.nasa.gov/implan/role.html for additional information.
I see pros and cons to this program.
PROS:
-NASA offers a unique perspective to inspire children because it gives a
glimpse of the future that can be attained via math, science and
engineering.
-NASA astronauts are positive role models and outstanding spokespersons
for the sciences.
-As Barbara Morgan said in a 2000 interview with NEA, NASA is showing
that teachers are as important as geologists, engineers, physicians and
scientists to the space program.
CONS:
-NASA's foray into the education arena may be viewed as a Public
Relations campaign to inspire support for NASA more than for education.
-There are other agencies tasked with promoting K-12 education (e.g.
NSF) in math and science. NASA should concentrate its resources on its
primary missions.
-NASA can do more to inspire children and adults with successful
missions and driving towards a National goal (e.g. Hubble Space
Telescope, Mars Pathfinder).
-Why teachers and not politicians, journalists or artists?
Additional PROS/CONS and your comments welcome.
Thanks for reading.
-Space provide a unique environment to conduct various demonstrations
(especially Newtonian physics) that can't be done on earth.
>
> CONS:
> -NASA's foray into the education arena may be viewed as a Public
> Relations campaign to inspire support for NASA more than for education.
> -There are other agencies tasked with promoting K-12 education (e.g.
> NSF) in math and science. NASA should concentrate its resources on its
> primary missions.
> -NASA can do more to inspire children and adults with successful
> missions and driving towards a National goal (e.g. Hubble Space
> Telescope, Mars Pathfinder).
> -Why teachers and not politicians, journalists or artists?
>
Sure, the on-orbit experiance should be made available for everyone to
enjoy. Not just hand picked government agents to fly on government run
monopolies. Thats why we should return to Capitalism wrt to space travel so
that the journalists, artists or just plain tourist can enjoy the
experiance.
Craig Fink
Duh! The most obvious one. Thanks.
[snip all after]
I wish the Educator Astronauts every success and hope that if they ever
travel to England that I will get a chance to meet them and introduce them
to some of my pupils.
Rod Stevenson
Norwich
England
(Climbs off grammatical soapbox)
Matt Bille
(MattW...@AOL.com)
OPINIONS IN ALL POSTS ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE AUTHOR
To be nasty and cynical, the purpose of the Educator Astronaut was to give
NASA a way to co-opt Barbara Morgan into the astronaut corps, thus
shutting her up. She'll pretty definitely get to fly. The chances that
*another* EA will get to fly are no better than 50-50, and it will go
downhill fast after that.
>Currently, 3-6 educator astronaut candidates will be selected to be
>among the next Astronaut Candidate group.
Realistically, NASA is already oversupplied with astronauts.
>-Why teachers and not politicians, journalists or artists?
Because the demise of the original Citizens In Space program, after
Challenger, left a determined and vocal teacher hanging in there, politely
and persistently harassing NASA about a flight opportunity, and it did not
leave any already-selected representatives of those other occupations in
similar positions.
Politicians, yes, undoubtedly, when a half-baked excuse can be found, as
one was for Senator Glenn. The others, no chance.
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! | he...@spsystems.net
Thanks...I learn something new everyday.
[snip all before]
>
> To be nasty and cynical, the purpose of the Educator Astronaut was to give
> NASA a way to co-opt Barbara Morgan into the astronaut corps, thus
> shutting her up. She'll pretty definitely get to fly. The chances that
> *another* EA will get to fly are no better than 50-50, and it will go
> downhill fast after that.
Thanks for the up front caveat on your post. I do not know what they
had to 'shut her up' about. I take your comment either
1) she would incessantly complain to the media, or
2) she would divulge something nasty that would threaten to bring down NASA.
I don't think NASA would have created an entire section in their
strategic roadmap for #1; #2 smacks of a half-baked conspiracy and not
at all realistic, IMO.
The EA (Educator Astronaut) website says that Ms. Morgan will definitely
fly. I can't imagine other EA's not flying if NASA is specifically
recruiting them.
>
[snip]
>
> Politicians, yes, undoubtedly, when a half-baked excuse can be found, as
> one was for Senator Glenn. The others, no chance.
I do not think your average Joe Politician will fly again because of the
controversy it would generate. John Glenn, however, wasn't your average
politician.
>The EA (Educator Astronaut) website says that Ms. Morgan will definitely
>fly. I can't imagine other EA's not flying if NASA is specifically
>recruiting them.
You don't have much of an imagination, then. NASA has recruited many
astronauts who may never fly. NASA has too many astronauts, and too
little ambition to actually fly them.
--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org
"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: postm...@fbi.gov
>On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:05:24 GMT, in a place far, far away, stmx3
><stmx3N...@NOSPAMM.netscape.net> made the phosphor on my monitor
>glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>>The EA (Educator Astronaut) website says that Ms. Morgan will definitely
>>fly. I can't imagine other EA's not flying if NASA is specifically
>>recruiting them.
>
>You don't have much of an imagination, then. NASA has recruited many
>astronauts who may never fly. NASA has too many astronauts, and too
>little ambition to actually fly them.
Why does NASA keep recruiting them then?
Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill
I understand your point. My point is that NASA is recruiting a certain
number of candidates specifically for the K-12 education experience
(minimum 3 yrs experience required). Why go through these maneuvers if
there is no intent to fly them in the future? What better way to
highlight their EA program?
>> You don't have much of an imagination, then. NASA has recruited many
>> astronauts who may never fly. NASA has too many astronauts, and too
>> little ambition to actually fly them.
>
>I understand your point. My point is that NASA is recruiting a certain
>number of candidates specifically for the K-12 education experience
>(minimum 3 yrs experience required). Why go through these maneuvers if
>there is no intent to fly them in the future?
For PR purposes.
>What better way to
>highlight their EA program?
They highlighted their space station program for years without
actually flying any hardware. Why should they have to fly EAs? They
get adequate publicity just recruiting them.
Do you really think that EAs are going to go to the head of the line
when many non-EA astronauts have never flown?
I'm tempted to say that cutting in line at NASA isn't unheard of. But I
don't have specific examples at hand. If they're hiring EAs for PR,
then EAs may leapfrog the line, for PR.
>Rand Simberg wrote:
>[snip]
>>
>> Do you really think that EAs are going to go to the head of the line
>> when many non-EA astronauts have never flown?
>
>I'm tempted to say that cutting in line at NASA isn't unheard of.
Of course not, but not for that reason (well, for Glenn, but there
were very powerful political reasons for that)
>But I
>don't have specific examples at hand. If they're hiring EAs for PR,
>then EAs may leapfrog the line, for PR.
Unlikely since, as I said, they can get adequate PR without flying
anyone.
I'm all for the "Educator Astronaut" program. However, I agree with your
point that success in its primary missions is the most effective component in
NASA's ability to inspire. Were it more successful, it would have to issue
big sticks to all astronauts so that, on their PR tours, they could beat back
the hordes of people seeking to get closer to the source of inspiration. And
of course, we would not have been hearing about a "crisis in aerospace" these
past few years: American students would not be abandoning engineering
curricula in droves, and aerospace executives would not be worrying (at least
not in public) about how to replace their talented workers when the baby
boomers retire en masse.
Neither, exactly. She just kept politely pointing out that she was still
around and still ready and willing to fly, whenever NASA was brave enough
to assign her a seat. And every now and then she got some press coverage
for it. She was becoming an embarrassment to NASA.
>I don't think NASA would have created an entire section in their
>strategic roadmap for #1...
Creating things on paper is really pretty easy, and they can be uncreated
just as easily after their public-relations usefulness has passed.
>The EA (Educator Astronaut) website says that Ms. Morgan will definitely
>fly. I can't imagine other EA's not flying if NASA is specifically
>recruiting them.
As Rand has noted, NASA has more astronauts than it needs already. Any
decision to recruit more is as much public relations as a real requirement.
>> Politicians, yes, undoubtedly, when a half-baked excuse can be found, as
>> one was for Senator Glenn. The others, no chance.
>
>I do not think your average Joe Politician will fly again because of the
>controversy it would generate.
Like I said, it requires some sort of plausible excuse. One will be found
if there is sufficient incentive.
>John Glenn, however, wasn't your average politician.
Correct; he was a politician that the President owed a big favor to.
When I was at KSC, the staff at The Centre for Space Education made the
comment that most of the teachers they get coming through the centre seem to
be from England and that it is an English organisation that is trying to get
more US teachers to visit the centre. MORE TEACHERS = MORE INSPIRATION =
MORE ENGINEERING GRADUATES!!
Rod Stevenson
(An inspired English Science teacher)
My best guess would be to always have whatever they consider an
adequate pool to choose from at any given time, as existing ones retire,
pass away (hopefully not *during* a mission), or go on to other careers
after either:
Getting one or more mission assignments, or;
Giving up on ever being on *any* mission.
Previous shuttle astronauts have performed some excellent educational
demos, particularly the "Toys in Space" series.
~ CT
Actually no one has to say it since that's not true.
Checking several sources shows relevancy is indeed a word and can be used
interchangeably with Relevance.
I agree, and they are some of the most interesting space videos to watch.
"Toys in Space", hammer and feather, and just plain ordianry things like
water or food. Can a teacher add more to what generic astronauts can do.
Probably, just like sending a geologist to the moon, instead of teaching a
generic astronaut some geology.
Craig Fink
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 16:09:21 GMT, in a place far, far away, stmx3
> <stmx3N...@NOSPAMM.netscape.net> made the phosphor on my monitor
> glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>>Rand Simberg wrote:
>>[snip]
>>>
>>> Do you really think that EAs are going to go to the head of the line
>>> when many non-EA astronauts have never flown?
>>
>>I'm tempted to say that cutting in line at NASA isn't unheard of.
>
> Of course not, but not for that reason (well, for Glenn, but there
> were very powerful political reasons for that)
>
>>But I
>>don't have specific examples at hand. If they're hiring EAs for PR,
>>then EAs may leapfrog the line, for PR.
>
> Unlikely since, as I said, they can get adequate PR without flying
> anyone.
>
Adequate PR without flying an EA, but far more superior PR by flying her. A
teacher that can tour this countries schools with video and personal
experiances in hand so to speak. If NASA selects people who were
exceptional teachers in the classroom, they will be exceptional public
relation spokespersons after they fly.
Andm, it wouldn't hurt the future space tourist industry either.
Craig Fink
> > Previous shuttle astronauts have performed some excellent educational
> > demos, particularly the "Toys in Space" series.
> >
>
>
> I agree, and they are some of the most interesting space videos to watch.
> "Toys in Space", hammer and feather, and just plain ordianry things like
> water or food. Can a teacher add more to what generic astronauts can do.
> Probably, just like sending a geologist to the moon, instead of teaching a
> generic astronaut some geology.
What the teacher adds is a person that kids can relate to.
I don't see it as any special expertise, such as the geologist on the
Moon. When kids see a teacher, it's not like a test pilot or someone
with a PhD or a politician. It's someone who is not so far removed
from the desks they are sitting at. From there, it's not so far
removed for them to think, "I can do that."
So the biggest benefit of flying a teacher, as I see it, is to provide
inspiration to youth.
The sad part is that it works both ways. When Christa died, the
tragedy was felt deeply by young kids and I don't know any way to
measure how many were *turned off* from science/engineering by that.
~ CT
Not to mention the
1) Liquid Globule Retrieval via Oral Cavity experiments
2) M&M Free Dispersion (and Subsequent Retrieval via Oral Cavity)
experiments
3) Verification of Classical Physics with a Slinky experiment
etc.
However, there are some decent experiments planned with onboard
materials under a new program. Data collection methods, however, will
limit their usefulness, although the fact that they are being done may
help in the detailed planning stages of follow-on experiments, when the
big bucks will be spent. For more info, see
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/25sep_ingenuity.htm?list683223
A pretty depressing outlook for any would be astronauts then, I
remember the American guy who was the first one to fly the jet pack
thing the shuttle crews used to take out there-what ever happened to
the jet packs as you never see shuttle crews use them anymore? But,
he had to wait close to 20 years to get his change to go into space,
his reward though for his long wait was to be the first human to fly
unconnected to any spacecraft while in orbit.
And as the shuttle fleet is now down to just 3 shuttles, most members
of the said 'pool' of astronauts are in for a long wait for their turn
to go into space. IF *I* was an American, and was qualified enough to
join NASA as an trainee astronaut, and got to be selected to the pool,
I'd have have chosen that career path to go into space, and not just
wait in a long que with my fellow astronauts on the off chance I'd be
picked for a flight. Its like being an aircraft pilot, who never gets
to fly.
>And, it wouldn't hurt the future space tourist industry either.
Unless of course the first one goes the way Christa McAuliffe's did.
What did a geologist on the moon add to the science of rock collecting,
other than being an individual who might have a deeper appreciation for
what he was seeing? (This question meant to demonstrate my ignorance
rather than incite old debates)
I think "PRO" for having a Teacher in space is that he/she will have a
better relationship with the intended audience.
A "CON" is that the Teacher may only be a slightly better presenter of
materials than your avg. Joe Astronaut. I have seen videos of teachers
and astronauts presenting material with the driest of personalities.
For kids raised on TV, I say send Bill Nye, the Science Guy.
They don't show up any more because the main requirement for them turned
out to be superfluous. The idea was that the orbiter was too clumsy to
link up direct with something like a satellite that needed repairing, so a
guy would go out with one of the MMUs -- as Nelson did on the Solar Max
repair flight -- and bring the bird in. Trouble was, it turned out that
if you did things right, the orbiter and its arm *could* be maneuvered
delicately enough to link up direct.
>he had to wait close to 20 years to get his change to go into space...
However, that time there was a real reason. :-) He, like a number of
others at the time, got taken on to build up the astronaut corps for
the ambitious post-Apollo programs... which evaporated in the budget
disaster of summer 1967.
>Previous shuttle astronauts have performed some excellent educational
>demos, particularly the "Toys in Space" series.
<big booming voice> Tooooyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyysssss
innnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaace! <bbv>
Hehe. Anyhow, I have to ask...Where can I get copies?
That just sounds cool.:-)
John Penta
penta j 2 at scranton dot edu
>In article <3f7adbb2...@news.dsl.pipex.com>,
>Christopher <mcai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>I remember the American guy who was the first one to fly the jet pack
>>thing the shuttle crews used to take out there-what ever happened to
>>the jet packs as you never see shuttle crews use them anymore?
>
>They don't show up any more because the main requirement for them turned
>out to be superfluous. The idea was that the orbiter was too clumsy to
>link up direct with something like a satellite that needed repairing, so a
>guy would go out with one of the MMUs -- as Nelson did on the Solar Max
>repair flight -- and bring the bird in. Trouble was, it turned out that
>if you did things right, the orbiter and its arm *could* be maneuvered
>delicately enough to link up direct.
That has a familiar ring to it, I wonder how many millions of dollars
got spend developing the things. They are most probably in a glass
case in the NASA tourist centre now.
>>he had to wait close to 20 years to get his change to go into space...
>
>However, that time there was a real reason. :-) He, like a number of
>others at the time, got taken on to build up the astronaut corps for
>the ambitious post-Apollo programs... which evaporated in the budget
>disaster of summer 1967.
Yeah, the year sounds about right for that guy to have joined the
astronaut pool, but his persistance and patience did pay off as he
made it, AND his No 1 fan i.e. his Mother was at the pad to see him
attain his goal.
Having an appreciation for what he was seeing changed the crew's sampling
priorities. He was able to make fairly good guesses about the site's
geological structure on the fly, which led to sampling of specific
materials because they were likely to represent structures that otherwise
were out of reach.
You migh *almost* ask the opposite question - why send non-geologists
if you intend to study moon?
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++
Last I heard, the flight articles were in protected storage, against the
possibility that they might someday be needed for something. They'd
probably need significant refurbishing and re-testing, but at least
theoretically they are still available for flight use.
>Craig Fink wrote:
>[snip]
>> I agree, and they are some of the most interesting space videos to watch.
>> "Toys in Space", hammer and feather, and just plain ordianry things like
>> water or food. Can a teacher add more to what generic astronauts can do.
>> Probably, just like sending a geologist to the moon, instead of teaching a
>> generic astronaut some geology.
>What did a geologist on the moon add to the science of rock collecting,
>other than being an individual who might have a deeper appreciation for
>what he was seeing?
The ability to make educated, as opposed to wild, guesses as to which
of the rocks at his feet was most worth collecting and where to go,
maybe even dig, to find a rock that would be even more worth collecting.
This is actually a Big Deal, which is why geologists, prospectors, et
al actually go out into the field rather than just stay in a nice,
comfortable office and pay natives and/or footlose college students
minimum wage to send them random bags of rocks.
The first couple missions, we knew so little of lunar geology that
everything was going to be random guessing anyhow, so sending test
pilots with an "Intro to Geology" short course behind them was not
a bad idea. Planning for the last missions to have actual geologists
who had studied the rocks brought back from the first missions, that
also was not a bad idea.
The same, incidentally, will be true when we eventually get to Mars.
The first test pilot will trump all the robots who went before, and
the first trained geologist will trump all the test pilots who went
before.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Paraphrase:
-Joe Engle got kicked off so that we could get better rocks.-
In looking at Professor Jack's recent course notes on lunar theory, it
doesn't look to me that it made all that big a difference in the
longer run. But it did satisfy the outcry from the scientific
community at the time (on top of Curt Michel's walkout).
Follow-up paraphrase":
-We still don't know "Jack" about the Moon.-
The reasons I'm most glad about Jack getting in on Gene's crew had
nothing to do with his PhD. I'm glad that a citizen with no military
background got to fly to the Moon. And I'm glad that a lunar mission
got pulled off by a crew with no test pilot background. This is as
close to "routine" as you can get in eight lunar lander missions.
~ CT
Context. It's all about context.
> > Previous shuttle astronauts have performed some excellent educational
> > demos, particularly the "Toys in Space" series.
> Not to mention the
> 1) Liquid Globule Retrieval via Oral Cavity experiments
> 2) M&M Free Dispersion (and Subsequent Retrieval via Oral Cavity)
> experiments
<snip>
These classics seem to be mission *requirements* (as in "...don't come
home til you try THIS!")
> However, there are some decent experiments planned with onboard
> materials under a new program. Data collection methods, however, will
> limit their usefulness, although the fact that they are being done may
> help in the detailed planning stages of follow-on experiments, when the
> big bucks will be spent. For more info, see
> http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/25sep_ingenuity.htm?list683223
Looks like some neat stuff.
(But I'm amazed at how NASA talks about promoting science yet has no
qualms about referring to weightlessness by that completely bogus term
"microgravity". I'd go so far as to call that *anti-science*.)
~ CT
Gotta see it to believe it! I googled ["toys in space"] and got this
link:
http://spacelink.nasa.gov/products/Toys.In.Space.II/
...with video ordering info. And this page is one click away:
http://spacelink.nasa.gov/Instructional.Materials/NASA.Educational.Products/.index.html
...with the whole gamut of NASA educational offerings. Hope this
helps. Have fun playing Bill Nye with your students.
~ CT
I'd be interested to hear your example of Schmitt's "trump" of the SETPnauts.
But I do agree that Neil and the others *did* trump the bots!
~ CT
Oh, who said I was a teacher? Nooooooooooooo, I'm just a cousin and
"uncle" with a silly mind.
John
Is there any logical reason why test pilot and trained geologist
should be mutually exclusive? In the years leading up to the Mars
expedition there ought to be plenty of time to give the test pilot
astros a little more training than just Geology 101.
John.
--
-- Over 2000 webcams from ski resorts around the world - www.snoweye.com
-- Translate your technical documents and web pages - www.tradoc.fr
It's a question of time - you need to train your perceptive abilities
on a large number of samples, and that takes exercise, exercise, excercise.
Compare your driving abilities 1) immediately after obtaining your license,
2) ten years later. And the test pilot became a test pilot because he wanted
to be a test pilot, presumably, and not a geologist.
Jan
> (But I'm amazed at how NASA talks about promoting science yet has no
> qualms about referring to weightlessness by that completely bogus term
> "microgravity". I'd go so far as to call that *anti-science*.)
Please explain this objection. You *are* aware that relative
gravitational accelerations of objects in the space station are
not necessarily zero, right?
Paul
>On 1 Oct 2003 14:36:15 -0700, John Schilling wrote:
>> The same, incidentally, will be true when we eventually get to Mars.
>> The first test pilot will trump all the robots who went before, and
>> the first trained geologist will trump all the test pilots who went
>> before.
>Is there any logical reason why test pilot and trained geologist
>should be mutually exclusive? In the years leading up to the Mars
>expedition there ought to be plenty of time to give the test pilot
>astros a little more training than just Geology 101.
If we're getting into this level of detail, note that "test pilot"
probably means "flight test engineer"; stick-and-rudder expertise
is really not what we need. And "flight test engineer" usually
means at least an MS degree in aerospace engineering or a closely
related field, plus a year at Edwards or Mojave.
Meanwhile, professional geologists need at least an MS in geology,
so you're talking a baker's dozen years of specialized training
before they begin to accumulate the field experience that will
probably also be required of Mars astronaut candidates.
On top of which, however this comes about it will be at least an
unwritten job requirement that everybody be an attractive and
talented actor or star performer capable of putting on a good show
for the cameras. That's been true since the Mercury 7.
It's a bit much to ask for all of this in a single candidate, and
you won't be sending one man alone to Mars anyhow. So you select
two flight test engineers who have had Geology 101 and two serious
geologists who have had Aerospace Engineering 101.
If you've got two more seats, one goes to the doctor/exobiologist
and the other to the cinematographer.
Given effort and interest, you can make them pretty good amateur
geologists, as the Apollo 15 crew were.
This is not the same, however, as somebody who's spent his entire
professional life learning about and studying rocks. Will the test pilot
be interested enough in the subject to read geological journals in his
spare time? Not likely.
For something like a Mars expedition, where the whole justification is
presumably surface science, you want the surface scientists to be the very
best that can be had -- people who are passionate about their field, and
eat, drink, and sleep thinking about it. You don't get that level of
expertise by cross-training a test pilot.
If you must have someone who's both a geologist and a pilot, almost
certainly it is preferable to put a geologist in pilot training rather
than vice-versa. The mission is only going to need a pilot for about ten
seconds.
My bad. From your U of Scranton .edu email address I thought that
students would be involved somehow.
~ CT
>If we're getting into this level of detail, note that "test pilot"
>probably means "flight test engineer"; stick-and-rudder expertise
>is really not what we need. And "flight test engineer" usually
>means at least an MS degree in aerospace engineering or a closely
>related field, plus a year at Edwards or Mojave.
Or Patuxent River or RAF Boscombe Down or Epner. Actually, Mojave is
less likely than any of the four others, being civilian. Most FTEs
learn their stuff through gov't channels or sitting by Nellie (OJT).
The US Navy has long held that it's easier to teach a Naval Aviator to
be an MD than the reverse, although they've only tried it with
selected NAs.
Mary
--
Mary Shafer mil...@qnet.com
"There are only two types of aircraft--fighters and targets"
Major Doyle "Wahoo" Nicholson, USMC
> >You don't have much of an imagination, then. NASA has recruited many
> >astronauts who may never fly. NASA has too many astronauts, and too
> >little ambition to actually fly them.
>
> Why does NASA keep recruiting them then?
First rule of government agency budgeting: NEVER give up your funding unless
somebody holds a gun to your head
Second rule of government agency budgeting: There is no second rule.
--
Terrell Miller
mill...@bellsouth.net
"In the early days as often
as not the (rocket) exploded on or near the launch pad; that
seldom happens any longer."
-Columbia Accident Investigation Board report, vol.1 p.19
Cuz I am a student.:-) I have hordes of little cousins, and, well..I'm
the silly one of the family.:-)