|
Author
|
Topic: Petition: Grissoms should get MR-4 spacesuit
|
capoetc
Member Posts: 2169
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 09-13-2005 09:45 PM
   
quote:
Originally posted by thump:
Hopefully this won't be taken wrong, but I do recall that NASA used Dave Scott's lunar suit as a training suit.
Just curious because I honestly don't know -- did NASA somehow damage Scott's suit when using it for training? Or did they use it for training because the lunar program was coming to an end and it would be hard to justify buying training suits at $XXX,XXX.00 each?I think it would make sense for NASA to have used it for training and then retire it for posterity. I don't doubt that some Apollo program items were perhaps not pristinely handled over the years... but using a suit for training and tossing it in the dumpster are, in my opinion, distinctly different outcomes. And, I definitely did NOT take the previous post as being negative in any way ... we can all agree to disagree on certain things in an agreeable way.  The question at hand is: What do we think should happen with Grissom's suit? And, more importantly, what do the current owners (Smithsonian) think should happen to the suit? I, for one, trust the Smithsonian to make the best call possible to satisfy the involved parties while preserving our historical artifacts (yes, OUR artifacts) for posterity. |
Matt T
Member Posts: 1368
From: Chester, Cheshire, UK
Registered: May 2001
|
posted 09-14-2005 03:26 AM
To answer your question - I think it is very likely that Scott's suit was (from a conservators point of view) damaged by being used again for Cernan to train in. However, the attitude amongst the astronauts, Crew Systems Division and ILC was far more utilitarian at the time. If a suit could be reused it was, and as such several suits were reassigned from one similarly sized individual to another (always for training use only). I've seen a Cernan lunar glove (from his Apollo 14 backup suit) that had been reassigned to Scott, so it could even be two way traffic.Regarding the ILC sale - I believe there were no flown suits or pieces, mainly mock-ups and quality control failed items. You might enjoy this photo from the sale, makes me smile/wince every time.  I paid just shy of $1,000 in a recent auction for one of the boots the kid is trying on, and the Apollo Prototype helmet he's wearing (which would fit my ILC prototype suit just beautifully) is identical to the one that fetched about $5K last year. The price of a complete suit at the ILC sale was $200. Helmets were $5...  |
Rick Mulheirn
Member Posts: 4167
From: England
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 09-14-2005 01:28 PM
Thanks for posting that picture of the ILC sale Matt. It brings a tear to my eye... and a lump to my throat! |
Hilary
Member Posts: 37
From: Huntsville, AL
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted 10-31-2005 09:33 PM
I came across this information today on the NASA News Bulletin regarding the latest on the fight over Grissom's suit at the Astronaut Hall of Fame. It looks like it might be leaving the Hall of Fame for the Grissom Memorial Museum in Indiana. Anyone ever been there? A Grissom biography that recently came out had some pictures of the opening in the 70s, but I was wondering what it was like now. |
MarylandSpace
Member Posts: 1336
From:
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 10-31-2005 11:10 PM
I made a visit to Mitchell, Indiana about five years ago. There is an exhibit in the town hall but the main museum in located at a state park just outside Mitchell.Gus's Gemini capsule was on display. Kinda neat as you could climb a spiraling staircase to see downward at the capsule. My all-time favorite capsule display is Friendship 7 at NASM in Washington, DC. I really like peering in and imagining what it was like for John Glenn. However, at this most visited museum in the world, I enjoy all the seconds I can get viewing in. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 11-02-2005 12:32 AM
I inquired with the Smithsonian about the validity of the information presented in the article. Roger Launius, Chair of the Space History Division at the National Air and Space Musuem kindly responded: The Museum's current plans for this artifact are to continue its loan to the Astronaut Hall of Fame, Kennedy Space Center. There has been no discussion and no decision on any future move of the Grissom suit. We have been contacted by several media representatives regarding this issue and sought to correct assertions made to the contrary. We learned from them that Amanda Meyers has claimed that NASM has agreed to loan the spacesuit to the Grissom Memorial Museum. We have not received such a request from the museum, and no consideration of the issue has taken place. What we have stated repeatedly is that should the suit be requested by another museum we would consider that request in the same way that we consider similar requests from any appropriate organization for the loan of artifacts in the Smithsonian's National Collection. |
John McGauley
Member Posts: 151
From: Fort Wayne, Indiana USA
Registered: May 2001
|
posted 11-02-2005 07:47 AM
The museum is a very neat place, located at Spring Mill State Park near Mitchell, Ind. I haven't been back to see the results, but the State of Indiana was supposed to be undertaking a big renovation/expansion a few years ago. In addition to the GT-3 capsule, Grissom's Gemini suit is there and what is purported to be his Liberty Bell 7 flown helmet is also on display. In 2001, Max Ary came to town and presented the museum with a couple of components from Liberty Bell that couldn't be reinstaleld in the spacecraft. He also presented a dime, recovered from the capsule, for auction by a group that was fundraising to preserve Grissom's childhood home. |
MrSpace86
Member Posts: 1618
From: Gardner, KS, USA
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted 11-02-2005 09:12 AM
I still think the ideal place for the suit would be the Kansas Cosmosphere and Space Center with Liberty Bell 7. Yes, Wally Schirra's suit is there, but they can put that one where the Grissom suit is now and bring Gus' here to a better place. |
Choose2Go
Member Posts: 73
From: Merritt Island, FL, USA
Registered: Feb 2004
|
posted 11-02-2005 11:04 AM
The Grissom Memorial Museum is a small building that has some very important space artifacts inside. Also in downtown Mitchel there is a Titan booster, as well as the Gemini spacesuit. |
carolynmeyer
Member Posts: 11
From: Madison, CT 06443
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 11-10-2005 07:13 PM
I have a copy of the letter, dated October 28, 2005 that was sent to 'offically" asked the Smithsonian: October 28, 2005 Ms. Toni Thomas
Smithsonian Institution
MRC 311, NASM 3561
P.O. Box 37012
Washington, D.C. 20013-7012 Dear Ms. Thomas: Please allow me to formally express to you my profound interest in having the opportunity to display the Mercury VII space suit worn by Gus Grissom at our Grissom Memorial at Spring Mill State Park. The memorial is a beautiful building located within the confines of Spring Mill State Park at Mitchell, Indiana. It houses many items and artifacts concerning Gus from childhood through his death in 1967. This special place helps to feed the dreams of young people from all over the world who come to visit. Spring Mill State Park is located in the southern section of Lawrence County, Indiana. Lawrence County is the only county in the nation that can claim being the hometown of three astronauts. Astronauts Gus Grissom, Charles Walker, and Ken Bowersox all grew up in Lawrence County, Indiana. Please give this request your utmost consideration. Rest assured the suit will be well cared for and displayed proudly both those entrusted with its care. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Daniel W. Bortner, SPHR
Director
Indiana State Parks & Reservoir |
carolynmeyer
Member Posts: 11
From: Madison, CT 06443
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 11-10-2005 07:15 PM
Just to be very clear - we have received rude messages on our answering machine from Rose deThomas of the Smithsonian and a very intimidating letter from the Smithsonian's Claire Brown about Amanda's web site. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 11-10-2005 07:43 PM
I can't speak to the voice mail messages as I haven't heard them, but here is the letter that was sent so readers can judge for themselves if indeed it was intimidating: (I cropped the letter for presentation on this website, in part to prevent public disclosure of your address, but otherwise its content has not been edited.) I also noted your letter to the Vice President and Senators, asking for Amanda to be allowed to address the Senate. I believe you mistated some of the facts and as such will be following your example by sending our own letter to the same individuals. I am glad to see the letter from Mr. Bortner, and look forward to speaking with him in the near future. Per the Smithsonian, the loan to the U.S. Astronaut Hall of Fame has recently been renewed and will not expire until 2007. At that time, I am sure that the GMM's request will be weighed against any and all that are also submitted. Such is how Gemini 12 was moved to the Adler Planetarium, Apollo 7 was moved to the Frontiers of Flight and ASTP was moved to the California Science Center. |
cfreeze79
Member Posts: 455
From: Herndon, VA, USA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 11-11-2005 02:19 AM
Right on, Robert! Thanks for straighten the record...With a on-going war on terrorism, recovery from two hurricanes, and the numerous other affairs of the nation, the LAST thing the senators need to concern themselves with is where a 40-year-old spacesuit the government owns is displayed. Granted, the dream of every 15-year-old debate team captain is to address Congress... But come on! This is not the function of Congress, and taking the case to them is a waste of Congress' time and energy. |
carolynmeyer
Member Posts: 11
From: Madison, CT 06443
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 11-11-2005 05:50 AM
What you failed to post on your site was the cc to the Office of Counsel. An intimidation tactic now being used as Amanda was able to have the official request from GMM. What we were also told was since the lease was up at the end of the year, it would go before a board to discuss where the suit would go next. I never heard about the board meeting, which we also asked to speak to, until the official request came in. Then the Smithsonian denied it and threatened, their words not mine, legal action against two papers for writing the update.Yes, I have written to the Vice President and the senate to investigate the situation. If they can spend two weeks discussing major league baseball and steroids, the can spend time on this. |
mdmyer
Member Posts: 900
From: Humboldt KS USA
Registered: Dec 2003
|
posted 11-11-2005 08:32 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cfreeze79:
This is not the function of Congress, and taking the case to them is a waste of Congress' time and energy.
And we all know that Congress would never want to waste time or energy. Keep up the good work girls. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 11-11-2005 09:42 AM
quote:
Originally posted by carolynmeyer:
What you failed to post on your site was the cc to the Office of Counsel. An intimidation tactic now being used as Amanda was able to have the official request from GMM.
Carolyn, copying general counsel is not an intimidation tactic; its standard operating procedure for any large organization where the topic discusses matters within their purview (and in this case, it's a misrepresentation of the Smithsonian's position). Were the letter sent by the Office of Counsel, then you might be able to call it intimidating (though, that too would be par for the course for any DC institution with federal oversight) but this letter is written very politely by Claire Brown with the Office of Public Affairs. |
carolynmeyer
Member Posts: 11
From: Madison, CT 06443
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 11-12-2005 06:27 AM
I beg to differ... The first letter Amanda received inviting her to a behind the scenes tour and explaining what she needed to do to have the space suit moved copied no one. Because she was able to have the GMM send the letter, which shocked them, the suit was renewed with the AhoF immediately, allowing no opening for the GMM. If you look back to some of the articles, Washington Post, AP, etc., you will see Roger Launius state that it would be taken into consideration. But there was no consideration, no meeting, no board, just done behind the scenes. By the way, has the Smithsonian ever complained to you about your web site, using their name? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 11-12-2005 07:33 AM
quote:
Originally posted by carolynmeyer:
By the way, has the Smithsonian ever complained to you about your web site, using their name?
Actually, yes. Though I wouldn't call it a complaint, merely a conversation. When the Smithsonian began its efforts to fundraise for the restoration of the Saturn V in Houston, it was our initial intent to use this site to directly collect funds through online payments (something at the time the SI was unprepared to do using their own website). I wrote the appropriate person on their staff with the idea and heard the same thing you did: as much as they appreciated the offer of support, rules govern the use of their name and logo when it came to soliciting funds. Their reasoning was understandable: as the responsible institution managing some of the world's most popular museums - and a majority of the United States' national treasures - there are a lot of people and companies that would just as a soon use the SI to their own advantage. I would need to go back and look but I am fairly certain at least some of our correspondence was copied to their Office of Counsel. There would be no reason to copy counsel on a letter inviting Amanda to a tour or explaining policies already well established. Their input wouldn't be needed. However, a letter explaining the proper use of brand and title falls directly within their purview and may have been just as much for Ms. Brown's benefit as it was for yours. After all, Ms. Brown would need to know that the information she was conveying to you was accurate per the SI's policies, which would mean that counsel would need to see the final version of the letter sent. It is my understanding that the process to withdraw an artifact from a museum involves at least a two-year extension to their loan, if only to prepare the new location for its arrival. So even if the Grissom museum's request had arrived earlier, AHOF's loan would have been extended as the museum - and perhaps the NASA/NASM Committe - considered GMM's request (not to mention any others that could be received, including an appeal by the AHOF to retain the artifact). When you are dealing with an organization that is the size of the SI, you cannot expect decisions to be made within days of receiving a first request. The GMM has begun the established process. It does not mean that their request will be automatically approved (or declined) nor is it a quick process. I am sure if you spoke with Mr. Bortner, he would explain to you the same thing. All artifact moves introduce a risk of loss or damage to the item. Its not something the SI does very often, but when they do, its a decision that can take years to prepare and implement. That is why I find your letter to the Vice President and other politicians premature. It would be one thing if the SI had been given the time to consider the GMM's request and then declined (though even then, that's a valid decision as the fate of the nation's artifacts are not, nor should they be decided by only polls or petitions) but Amanda is crying foul before anything has really been done. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 11-12-2005 08:29 AM
quote:
Originally posted by carolynmeyer:
I beg to differ...The first letter Amanda received inviting her to a behind the scenes tour and explaining what she needed to do to have the space suit moved copied no one.
Actually, that isn't true. The letter dated August 26, 2005, was copied to Smithsonian Institution Secretary Lawrence M. Small ("Sec. Small") and to General Jack Dailey, director of the National Air and Space Museum ("Gen. Dailey"). The latter letter, which you found "intimidating" and which is reprinted in full above, was copied to Gen. Dailey; T. Maxwell, Associate Director for Research and Collections; E. Lieberman, Director of Communications; and Lauryn Guttenplan with the Office of General Counsel. quote:
Because she was able to have the GMM send the letter, which shocked them, the suit was renewed with the AhoF immediately, allowing no opening for the GMM.
Again, not true. In the original letter sent in August, Claire Brown wrote: "[Grissom's Mercury spacesuit] is on display in the Astronaut Hall of Fame and is expected to remain there at least two more years." As this letter pre-dates the GMM's letter by a full two months, it should have been no surprise that the soonest their request would be honored - if it was - would be in 2007. |
Andy McCulley
Member Posts: 245
From: Lansdale, PA
Registered: Jul 2001
|
posted 11-12-2005 10:51 AM
Robert, I am glad that someone has both sides of the facts available and is willing to take the time and energy to continuously provide a balanced, fair commentary on this issue.Keep up the good work.
|
cfreeze79
Member Posts: 455
From: Herndon, VA, USA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 11-12-2005 12:51 PM
I've got nothing but love for you, Robert! Outstanding and non-biased as always, and a credit to the collecting community. I just hope to have the edge you have one of these days.After all, a truly great debator can not make emotion-based claims and allegations without backing it up with FACTS first! Here's to keeping real!
|
carolynmeyer
Member Posts: 11
From: Madison, CT 06443
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 11-13-2005 08:17 AM
We have it on tape, from Dan LeBlanc himself, the director of the AHoF for Delaware North Park Services, that the lease was up at the end of the year. He also said there were other musuem's looking to have the space suit as well. What he also said is that in order for any museum to get the space suit or any other artifact for that matter, you have to give something in order to get something. The procedure is unwritten and unclear. Artifacts are moved at the sole discretion of one person at the Smithsonian, not a board as we were told. No meetings, no fairness, no accountability. The Smithsonian is also given millions of dollars annually from the federal government to maintain these artifacts, but each museum that wants or gets an artifact is expected to pay for the upkeep of those items. Therefore, it is our contention to draw that out into the light and make it fair across the board for every museum, especially when it is taxpayer dollars paying for it. That every museum in the US get these artifacts, instead of them being "stored in America's attic" and put them on display. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 11-13-2005 09:26 AM
quote:
Originally posted by carolynmeyer:
We have it on tape
Would you provide a copy of this tape for review? I am more than willing to cover whatever expense is involved in making a copy. |
John K. Rochester
Member Posts: 1292
From: Rochester, NY, USA
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 11-13-2005 10:58 AM
What once was a little girl's noble effort to have the suit go to a different museum for display seems to have now turned into a "he said-she said" match of wills between adults who..by their own admission..should have MUCH more important things to do than care about where Gus's old suit should be displayed. At this point in the effort, who cares anymore... |
cfreeze79
Member Posts: 455
From: Herndon, VA, USA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 11-13-2005 12:24 PM
First, it was who owned the suit...After that was conceded (if it really has been), it was who possessed it... Now, it is simple bickering. My question: Does it really matter where its displayed? The GMM camp has yet to establish why they have a stronger claim to it than the AHoF. After all, the AHoF has all the facilites and staff in place to better serve the suit for years to come. One who truly cared about the suit would factor that into their opinion. And, I'd rather see Amanda herself, the leader of the effort, here debating us on the issue, both here or via e-mail, rather than her mother. Let her speak for herself! |
Richard
New Member Posts: 5
From: Morrisonville, New York USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted 11-13-2005 01:07 PM
These ongoing discussions have been quite interesting. Robert, I applaud your comments and I did not see anything intimidating in the letter either. However, the more the discussion continues, the more confused I have become about the dynamics of the issue itself. Most importantly, I thought that this issue was supposed to be about a little girl who just happened to be concerned about the plight of the Grissom family and the Grissom spacesuit. Instead, it seems to me that this has become more a plight of a mother wanting to get press for her daughter.For example, it seems that the only one we ever hear from is Carolyn Meyer, who seems to be the only one stating a position for her daughter. There may be a few reasons for this: 1) It could be that the only one concerned with this is Carolyn Meyer. 2) It may be that Carolyn is the daughter's spokesperson, because the daughter is too busy to deal with any of this (which then proves the point that the daughter is not really that concerned with the issue). 3) It could be that Carolyn thinks that her duaghter is too young and immature to actually state a position for herself in these discussion (in which I wonder why Carolyn feels that she is mature enough to address a Congressional committee). Could someone help me understand the true motives behind all of this. It is just starting to seem a little fishy. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2169
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 11-13-2005 07:12 PM
Richard, agreed!I too would like to thank Robert Pearlman for playing the part of "middleman" in this issue, helping us to sort out the facts from everything else. Clearly, there is some deep-seated emotion creeping into this issue. I am reminded of one of Colin Powell's "Rules" (not sure if he originated it, but it's a good one): "Never let your ego get so attached to your position that when your position goes, your ego goes with it." I am not implying that this has happened in this case, but it is starting to look like it could drift that way... |
carolynmeyer
Member Posts: 11
From: Madison, CT 06443
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 11-16-2005 06:23 AM
I would like to address some of these comments. First, Amanda has not gone onto this web site because she is only 15, But is here with me when I write. After seeing the MSNBC special report about internet predators, not that I believe that there are any here, but it is a standing rule in my house that no one goes posting onto any site with a parent overseeing. Second, the reason we want the Senate to investigate is there is no fair and equitable way for the GMM or any other museum for that matter, to request items from the Smithsonian. There is no written document or procedure. Third, the original goal was to return the suit to the family, or at the very least give them a say in where it goes. Since NASA or the Smithsonian refused even the second part, we tried to put the suit back in the museum. Lastly, cc:ing the Counsel did frighten Amanda. She took it as a threat to our family, not me or her father. I don't control how Amanda feels, but it did upset her a great deal that the Smithsonian left rude messages and then sent the letter. As a young girl she expected the letter to say the suit was going to the GMM since they sent the letter to ask for it. On behalf of myself and Amanda, this is our last posting. From the tone of the comments above, I do not feel our side is welcome here any longer, the focus is being lost and it is getting personal. |
1202 Alarm
Member Posts: 436
From: Switzerland & France
Registered: Nov 2003
|
posted 11-16-2005 09:33 AM
quote:
Originally posted by carolynmeyer:
Amanda has not gone onto this web site because she is only 15,
Best joke for the end? I didn't know cS was X-rated.And how was she able to conduct all that Grissom mess if she's not even allowed to type on her own keyboard on this website? |
lunarrv15
Member Posts: 1355
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, Hamilton
Registered: Mar 2001
|
posted 11-16-2005 10:29 AM
quote:
Originally posted by carolynmeyer:
She took it as a threat to our family...
Being felt threaten and actually being threaten are different. So, could be the family wasn't really threaten "just" felt what they said was harmful. quote:
she expected the letter to say the suit was going to the GMM
When a person expectation isn't met, a period of emotion sets in feeling disappointed the goal didn't achieve the outcome.Could this be what she is feeling? Just my opinion. Thank daughter for her efforts. I feel it's an issue between Grissom family and the museum. |
John K. Rochester
Member Posts: 1292
From: Rochester, NY, USA
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 11-16-2005 11:59 AM
The focus was lost from the get-go... and as far as personal, I feel that you and yours misrepresenting the TONE of a letter or response is quite a personal affront to those who wrote it. Publicity seekers sometimes get a little more than they bargained for. |
cfreeze79
Member Posts: 455
From: Herndon, VA, USA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 11-16-2005 05:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by carolynmeyer:
From the tone of the comments above, I do not feel our side is welcome here any longer, the focus is being lost and it is getting personal.
Both sides of the debate have, and continue to be, welcome here. But you are expected to bring more than emotions and allegation of personal attacks to the discussion table if you want to make headway in this forum.cc:ing Legal Counsel is a standard 'C.Y.A.' move to simply make sure the document is on record somewhere, especially important from their perspective, since your camp has decided to make this thing ugly. |
Paul78zephyr
Member Posts: 675
From: Hudson, MA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 01-31-2010 03:07 PM
Can anyone say where this all stands now? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-31-2010 04:33 PM
Five years later, the suit remains on display at the Astronaut Hall of Fame. |
cfreeze79
Member Posts: 455
From: Herndon, VA, USA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 01-09-2014 06:46 PM
Out of morbid curiosity, has there been any developments on this "struggle"? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-09-2014 09:26 PM
No developments as the issue has been settled for years (if it ever really existed). The ownership of the suit was transferred to the Smithsonian in 2003 and it remains on display at the U.S. Astronaut Hall of Fame. |
onesmallstep
Member Posts: 1310
From: Staten Island, New York USA
Registered: Nov 2007
|
posted 01-10-2014 11:10 AM
I would think Grissom's memory and accomplishments were more than honored with the nationwide tour of Liberty Bell 7 after it was recovered from the waters of the Atlantic. Besides, given the fragile state of space garb as discussed here on cS, better it stay put and avoid the packing/unpacking of the suit on a tour (as originally proposed by the Grissom family) and possibly damaging it.Also out of curiosity; does any one know of Amanda Meyer's current plans and if she graduated college or entered the military? Would be nice to see the progress of someone aspiring to be an astronaut, despite the controversy generated by her efforts. |
advertisement