posted December 08, 2005 05:03 PM               

Wally, who sincerely applauds their efforts, now has a link to the Foundation's website on his homepage, which I would urge you to visit.

posted December 13, 2005 08:21 PM               

quote:

---

Thanks so much for your e-note. Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee are the men whose shoulders we stood on to reach the moon and they must never be forgotten. Please visit our site periodically; we are in the process of revamping it and there will be more information out there in the future.

You also may be interested in knowing that the Mercury Mission Control Center and the LC34 Support building are in danger of being demolished. This would be a monumental loss to the history of the American Space Program. NASA is requesting that these two sites be removed as part of the National Historic Landmark District in order to tear them down. So write to your congressman, senator, and to anyone else you can think of and let them know your feelings on this very important issue and that they should not allow this to happen.

The Mission Control Center (MCC) played a key role in early US Space flights. It provided launch, orbital, re-entry and landing control for all Mercury orbital flights and early Gemini flights.

The LC34 Support Building is part of Launch Complex 34, which launched Apollo 7 and is the site of the Apollo One tragedy.

Help us to keep the dream alive.

Katherine Cooper
Director
Apollo One Memorial Foundation, Inc.

---

posted December 13, 2005 10:00 PM               

If you've read "Fallen Astronauts" you'll know how much the lives and asacrifice of this crew means to me. The Foundation really needs help badly, and this potential loss of historic landmarks at the Cape is just the latest crushing disappointment to Kate and the team in their wonderful efforts, which, as I've said, go largely unsung, but noticed by those who care.

posted December 13, 2005 10:31 PM               

The Mercury Mission Control Center is historic - but its contents are what really matters and the consoles have already been moved to the visitor center, where they are presented in a tasteful manner.

What remains is an asbestos-laden building that NASA must pay to upkeep, likely per the EPA.

I have only found one reference on the web (inside a NASA newsletter) to the Pad 34 Engineering Support Building, but the launch pedestal and flame deflectors are the primary monument to that site.

So, if its a choice between keeping a few more workers hired and leveling these buildings, I say they should be torn down. Were we living in a different time, when CCAFS could be opened to the public, I would be greatly in favor of an effort to save and restore the buildings but its sadly just not the case.

posted December 14, 2005 11:49 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
The Mercury Mission Control Center is historic - but its contents are what really matters and the consoles have already been moved to the visitor center, where they are presented in a tasteful manner.

---

I'm going to disagree with you on this one, Robert. Standing in the Explorer 1 blockhouse, with its original controls all in their original places, looking out of the blast-proof windows at the pad where the rocket launched, was a magical experience with a real sense of history. The placement of the Mercury mission controls at the KSC visitor center (you look down on them from behind glass, while an annoyingly perky video plays)is to my mind a loss of priceless history. The display has no atmosphere - it looks like a 21st-century recreation and a Disneyfication. There's no sense of why these controls were important. It reminded me in a way of Vegas, where you can "visit" the Eiffel Tower, the Statue of Liberty, etc - but they are not and never will be the real thing. I can tell you, the adults and kids I saw strolling through there without a second glance didn't know what they were seeing.

I strongly suspect the moving of the controls is a way to ease the process of pulling down the mission control building. To my mind, this is wrong. There can only ever be one original mission control for American orbital missions, and it should be saved.

I agree with you about priorities - that's the world we live in. And given the choices you pose, I would do the same. But I am reminded of the argument "why should we go to the moon when we have starving children in the world." I am perhaps being a little idealistic, but why don't we do both?

NASA currently does a pretty poor job of reminding people of its greatest sucesses. I think if they did more to help celebrate past glories rather than let them crumble, they might find people willing to give them more money to do it again.

In the meantime, Kate Cooper and the Foundation are doing an outstanding job maintaining what NASA has no funds to do. If you believe that the Apollo 1/7 pad should be kept for future generations, I strongly urge you to help them in their efforts.

Thanks,

posted December 14, 2005 12:13 PM               

Even if NASA were to spend the money to restore the MMCC and move the consoles back to where they originally sat, far fewer people could view them than at present. Unless the U.S. has a sudden change of policy about restricting access to active Air Force stations, it is always going to be difficult to move tourists to that area and let them the free range that we used to all enjoy. That is certainly not NASA's fault but a sad result of the times that we live in.

The layoffs NASA is facing are not simply on paper. I know people - in fact, some of our readers - who are seriously looking at losing their job in the next 8 to 12 months to free up the funds to go to the Moon. Francis, you asked why we don't do both - the reality is that NASA can't afford to without trading against some other project or person's salary.

I agree that NASA does not do enough to celebrate its successes - past and present - and I believe there is a lot more that could be done with the money they do have, but I do not necessarily agree that includes restoring buildings which can only be accessed by a minority.

posted December 14, 2005 12:48 PM            

I think we are largely in agreement and both agree on the problem - not enough money. And of course, if the choice is a clear-cut one between current jobs and historic preservation, then jobs should be a priority.

What we are facing however is the loss of the original artefacts of the space program. There can only ever be one set of firsts, and when they are gone they are gone for good. NASA should not be in the position of having to make these choices, I am sure you agree. I think we need to look at the wider picture - that they should never have got to this position. Part of the reason they have in the past, I believe, is because of a lack of motivational opportunity for the public to buy into what NASA does and has done. Such opportunities would increase taxpayer support for NASA, science and other related programs.

So, it's a losing spiral of circumstances - less money means less ability to preserve inspirational places and tell the public about them - which results in less support, meaning less money, meaning less ability... etc.

And in the meantime, the world loses the physical evidence of what many consider to be humankind's greatest ever achievement.

posted December 14, 2005 02:02 PM               

Thousands visit Dealy Plaza in Dallas every year, to visit the location where Kennedy was assassinated. It isn't asphalt, grass, and concrete that they are visiting. IN fact, most of the key objects from that event are no longer there. But it's the place where history took place and the place itself is relatively unchanged. Same goes with sites like Gettysburg. It's the PLACE that often holds the greatest significance than just some collection of objects. People want to stand in the same spot where history happened. For Mercury, that place is MCC and the pads where the launches took place.

For example, there has been a lot of regret of the loss of the Cavern Club in Liverpool, where the Beatles played nearly 300 times. The club was torn down in the early 70s for, believe it or not, a parking lot. They have since re-created what the club was like, but no re-creation can make up for the lost original. What seemed like nothing but a brick cellar in the 1970s would have been a huge visitor destination today...and a place of civic pride.

Even if it takes a while to get enough money to restore the MCC building and find out ways to help the public access the site, it's still better to leave the building in place than to tear it down in haste (and regret it later). The whole Mercury complex, pads and all, should eventually be made available to visitors. Who knows...in a decade or so, large chunks of the area may no longer be an active Air Force station. Or certain areas may be deactiviated to allow greater access. It seems pretty certain that if MCC is torn down, then the odds of being able to visit that site at all will essentially disappear.

posted December 14, 2005 05:32 PM               

"The Foundation was formed by several private citizens who found in each other a common dream to give recognition to and honor the crew of Apollo 1 in a way that has been lacking in our country's history.

"In 1997 Launch Complex 34 was overgrown with bushes, weeds and wild pepper trees. A lonely kiosk stood at the perimeter of the pad with old photos desecrated by years of exposure to wind and sun. A faded 'Abandon in Place' sign was stamped on one leg of the launch pedestal. Two flame deflectors stood off to the side as if abandoned in time. Only one wall of the building that once housed fuel and electrical lines to the massive service gantry survived the years. Two small plaques affixed to the pedestal reminded the world of what had happened on this spot.

"In December 1998 we incorporated as a not-for-profit foundation in the State of Florida. Over the next eighteen months, we formed cleanup crews, replaced missing fire bricks, re-stenciled the 'Abandon in Place' stamp, and began to form a solid base from which to build a memorial. This process taught us about other historica events that occurred at Launch Pad 34 and we grew to include them all. In September 2000 we were certified by the United States government as a 501(c)(3) corporation, enabling tax-deductable donations.

"Others joined us as we moved forward. We have found a great deal of support by individuals from all walks of life who have all said, 'It's about time!'"

posted December 15, 2005 07:32 PM               

Perhaps a solution one day would be for the National Park Service to perhaps do what they do at Pearl Harbor. As a still very active Naval Base people are still allowed to visit the Arizona Memorial and the Missouri. The National Park Service seems to always do a very professional job of restoring and placing historical sites into context. It seems that there are not too many active launch complexes at the Cape anymore except for LC 17A-B and the reused LC-37. As most of the pads become deactivated they could be turned over to the park system.

posted December 16, 2005 08:40 PM               

I agree that something needs to be done regarding access to the sites given the military status of these areas. What I don't understand is why these areas cannot be transfered to NASA. During my recent tour it does not look like much is going on there. A great job as been done opening up access to the Cape via the Saturn V visitors center and other new visitor sites, perhaps this could be done in these areas as well.

Rob

P.S.

posted December 17, 2005 04:18 PM               

I think what you are doing is wonderful indeed. Your work in keeping and preserving LC-34 for the future is admirable. How often does the Air Force allow you out at LC-34? I think in the end having the National Park Service take over the deactivated Cape facilities is the way to go. They have the resources to not only to maintain but to restore these sites to what they were. Thanks to you Katherine LC-34 is very much something that can be saved. I think unfortunately that LC-19 and LC-14 are so overgrown that they can't be saved. Thankfully someone had sense to save and allow visitation at the pad 5 blockhouse.

As someone who lives local or relatively local I would love to be involved with your organization if needed.