smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) (02/01/91)
Two astronauts assigned to fly on Endeavour in September 1992, Mark Lee and Jan Davis, have just married. NASA is trying to decide what, if anything, to do about it...
carpent@SRC.Honeywell.COM (Todd Carpenter) (02/01/91)
Steven> Two astronauts assigned to fly on Endeavour in September 1992, Mark Lee Steven> and Jan Davis, have just married. NASA is trying to decide what, if Steven> anything, to do about it... Congratulate them?
palmer@nntp-server.caltech.edu (David Palmer) (02/01/91)
carpent@SRC.Honeywell.COM (Todd Carpenter) writes: >Steven> Two astronauts assigned to fly on Endeavour in September 1992, Mark Lee >Steven> and Jan Davis, have just married. NASA is trying to decide what, if >Steven> anything, to do about it... >Congratulate them? Fly the in-cabin IMAX camera. -- David Palmer palmer@gap.cco.caltech.edu ...rutgers!cit-vax!gap.cco.caltech.edu!palmer "Operator, get me the number for 911" --Homer Simpson
koszelak@ucrmath.ucr.edu (stan koszelak) (02/01/91)
I know that it's true about Jan and Mark. I was just wondering how you found out about it. Has there been a press release or is this inside information? There are other married astronaut couples, it's just that none of them have ever flown together before. I hope that Headquarters doesn't bother them about it, but I can just imagine one of their psychiatrists having some negative comment about it. -Stan Koszelak koszelak@ucrmath.ucr.edu NASAmail: skoszelak
keithley@apple.com (Craig Keithley) (02/01/91)
In article <1991Jan31.213011.8543@nntp-server.caltech.edu> palmer@nntp-server.caltech.edu (David Palmer) writes: > carpent@SRC.Honeywell.COM (Todd Carpenter) writes: > > >> Two astronauts assigned to fly on Endeavour in September 1992, Mark Lee >> and Jan Davis, have just married. NASA is trying to decide what, if >> anything, to do about it... > >> Congratulate them? > > Fly the in-cabin IMAX camera. > Why bother? Weekly World News ALREADY has the pictures! I've also heard from a reliable source that a pair of our Astronauts have already gone where no one has gone before. Supposedly a video camera was running, and somewhere off camera, but in voice range the energetic pair went at it for a while. Now, they were probably joking around and not really doing anything, but you never know!? I wonder if Weekly World News has that tape? If they use side bars, it must be true! :-) Craig Keithley, Apple Computer keithley@apple.com [standard disclaimers apply!]
jonkatz@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jonathan W. Katz) (02/01/91)
In article <11939@goofy.Apple.COM> keithley@apple.com (Craig Keithley) writes: >In article <1991Jan31.213011.8543@nntp-server.caltech.edu> >palmer@nntp-server.caltech.edu (David Palmer) writes: >> carpent@SRC.Honeywell.COM (Todd Carpenter) writes: >> >> >>> Two astronauts assigned to fly on Endeavour in September 1992, Mark Lee >>> and Jan Davis, have just married. NASA is trying to decide what, if >>> anything, to do about it... >> >>> Congratulate them? >> >> Fly the in-cabin IMAX camera. >> > >Why bother? Weekly World News ALREADY has the pictures! > >I've also heard from a reliable source that a pair of our Astronauts have >already gone where no one has gone before. Supposedly a video camera was >running, and somewhere off camera, but in voice range the energetic pair >went at it for a while. Now, they were probably joking around and not >really doing anything, but you never know!? I wonder if Weekly World >News has that tape? If they use side bars, it must be true! :-) > What are we trying to prove here? This is a forum to discuss the space shuttle system, not to slander astronauts. I am sure that there is a gosup newsgroup where this type of discussion should take place. Jonathan W. Katz Purdue University School of Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering jonkatz@gn.ecn.purdue.edu
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (02/02/91)
In article <11591@ucrmath.ucr.edu> koszelak@ucrmath.ucr.edu (stan koszelak) writes: >... There are other married astronaut >couples, it's just that none of them have ever flown together >before. I hope that Headquarters doesn't bother them about it, >but I can just imagine one of their psychiatrists having some >negative comment about it. A much more likely source of trouble than the psychiatrists is management worried about the reaction from the religious Right. It is not an accident that none of the married couples has ever flown together. -- If the Space Shuttle was the answer, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology what was the question? | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
scott@kong.gatech.edu (Scott Coulter) (02/02/91)
In article <1991Feb1.161748.28620@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <11591@ucrmath.ucr.edu> koszelak@ucrmath.ucr.edu (stan koszelak) writes: >>... There are other married astronaut couples ... [flying together] > >A much more likely source of trouble than the psychiatrists is management >worried about the reaction from the religious Right. It is not an accident >that none of the married couples has ever flown together. >-- >If the Space Shuttle was the answer, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology >what was the question? | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry Why on earth (no pun intended) would anyone on the 'religious Right' complain about married couples flying together on the space shuttle? Just curious, Scott D. Coulter "Nose against the grindstone, scott@cc.gatech.edu it feels real good; watch out! Georgia Tech Software Research Center it's Dog Eat Dog..." Weird Al
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (02/02/91)
In article <789@mephisto.edu> scott@kong.UUCP (Scott Coulter) writes: >Why on earth (no pun intended) would anyone on the 'religious Right' complain >about married couples flying together on the space shuttle? Because it's a pretty good bet to lead to the first case of sex in space. -- "Maybe we should tell the truth?" | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology "Surely we aren't that desperate yet." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
jimcat@itsgw.rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak) (02/02/91)
In article <1991Feb1.161748.28620@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <11591@ucrmath.ucr.edu> koszelak@ucrmath.ucr.edu (stan koszelak) writes: >>... There are other married astronaut >>couples, it's just that none of them have ever flown together >>before. I hope that Headquarters doesn't bother them about it, >>but I can just imagine one of their psychiatrists having some >>negative comment about it. > >A much more likely source of trouble than the psychiatrists is management >worried about the reaction from the religious Right. It is not an accident >that none of the married couples has ever flown together. I don't understand this. I thought the religious right respected marriage as a sacred institution. I'd think they'd be more worried about unmarried couples going up in space. After all, there's a commandment that says, "Thou shalt not commit adultery"; as far as I know there's nothing in the Bible that says "Thou shalt not be fruitful and multiply in orbit". -- Jim Kasprzak kasprzak@mts.rpi.edu (internet) RPI, Troy, NY userfe0u@rpitsmts.bitnet "A spirit with a vision is a dream with a mission." -Rush
lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall) (02/02/91)
In article <_2#&{K&@rpi.edu> jimcat@itsgw.rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak) writes: : In article <1991Feb1.161748.28620@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: : >In article <11591@ucrmath.ucr.edu> koszelak@ucrmath.ucr.edu (stan koszelak) writes: : >>... There are other married astronaut : >>couples, it's just that none of them have ever flown together : >>before. I hope that Headquarters doesn't bother them about it, : >>but I can just imagine one of their psychiatrists having some : >>negative comment about it. : > : >A much more likely source of trouble than the psychiatrists is management : >worried about the reaction from the religious Right. It is not an accident : >that none of the married couples has ever flown together. : : I don't understand this. I thought the religious right respected marriage : as a sacred institution. I'd think they'd be more worried about unmarried : couples going up in space. After all, there's a commandment that says, : "Thou shalt not commit adultery"; as far as I know there's nothing in the : Bible that says "Thou shalt not be fruitful and multiply in orbit". Many people would like to believe that the religious right is against sex in any form. Regardless of the falsity of that sentiment, it's a problem when people think it, especially when those people are NASA managers, a breed already noted for their conservatism in other respects... Larry Wall lwall@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov
drudetb@infonode.ingr.com (Ted B. Drude) (02/02/91)
>A much more likely source of trouble than the psychiatrists is management >worried about the reaction from the religious Right. It is not an accident >that none of the married couples has ever flown together. Oh really? That means NASA has deliberately kept married astronauts from being on the same flight before, right? Do you have any objective source for this or are you just blowing some weird biased smoke out of your own brain? There might be some folks who would get a bit upset over a non-married couple having sex in orbit for experimental purposes at taxpayer expense (which, as some have asserted on the net, has occurred on previous flights). But name ONE member of the "Religious Right" (or any other religious ""Direction" for that matter) that would object to a MARRIED couple being together, whether on earth or in orbit, in either a conjugal or non-conjugal sense. A more likely scenario is that NASA has just never thought about the ramifications of a married couple being on a mission together at all. They will probably "study" the issue for a while and conclude that nobody in their right mind should have any objections, be they religious or not.
clyde@ut-emx.cc.utexas.edu (Clyde W. Hoover) (02/04/91)
In article <1991Feb1.210814.10459@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: |> In article <789@mephisto.edu> scott@kong.UUCP (Scott Coulter) writes: |> >Why on earth (no pun intended) would anyone on the 'religious Right' complain |> >about married couples flying together on the space shuttle? |> |> Because it's a pretty good bet to lead to the first case of sex in space. |> -- Maybe so, but there is a distinct lack of privacy aboard the Shuttle - unless they sneak into the airlock or up to the flight deck when everybody else is asleep. Talk about taking a flying f... ! Clyde Hoover (Shouter-To-Dead-Parrots) | UNIX/VMS Services | "Any sufficently advanced technology Compuatation Center, UT Austin | is indisguishable from a rigged demo." clyde@emx.utexas.edu |
rick@ofa123.fidonet.org (Rick Ellis) (02/04/91)
On <Feb 01 22:10> Jim Kasprzak writes:
JK> I don't understand this. I thought the religious right respected marriage
JK> as a sacred institution. I'd think they'd be more worried about unmarried
JK> couples going up in space.
Nah, they're just worried about sex, period.
--
Rick Ellis
Internet: rick@ofa123.fidonet.org
Compuserve: >internet:rick@ofa123.fidonet.org
BBS: 714 939-1041
--------------------------------------------------------------------------pstinson@pbs.org (02/05/91)
In article <14243@ulysses.att.com>, smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) writes: > Two astronauts assigned to fly on Endeavour in September 1992, Mark Lee > and Jan Davis, have just married. NASA is trying to decide what, if > anything, to do about it... If they have dependents back on Earth, NASA may not want to risk having both parents lost on one mission. It is not just NASA. Ever since the three Sullivan brothers went down with the same ship in World War II, the Navy has been extremely reluctant to assign brothers to the same vessel. I imagine any policy eventually formulated regarding spouses will be an extension of this practice. No one wants one accident to wipe out a whole family.
bill@dmntor.UUCP (Bill Kyle) (02/05/91)
In article <1991Feb1.223556.2313@infonode.ingr.com> drudetb@infonode.ingr.com (Ted B. Drude) writes: >>A much more likely source of trouble than the psychiatrists is management >>worried about the reaction from the religious Right. It is not an accident >>that none of the married couples has ever flown together. > >Oh really? That means NASA has deliberately kept married astronauts from >being on the same flight before, right? Do you have any objective >source for this or are you just blowing some weird biased smoke out of >your own brain? > >There might be some folks who would get a bit upset over a non-married >couple having sex in orbit for experimental purposes at taxpayer expense >(which, as some have asserted on the net, has occurred on previous >flights). But name ONE member of the "Religious Right" (or any other >religious ""Direction" for that matter) that would object to a MARRIED >couple being together, whether on earth or in orbit, in either a >conjugal or non-conjugal sense. > >A more likely scenario is that NASA has just never thought about the >ramifications of a married couple being on a mission together at all. >They will probably "study" the issue for a while and conclude that >nobody in their right mind should have any objections, be they >religious or not. I agree that there are no political/religous grounds for NASA not to have married couples in orbit, however there are some "organizational behavior" issues. The emotional bonds that married couples have are known to disrupt normal working relations throughtout various working groups. Many males (yes even professionals) resent seeing their wives ordered about. Consider as well that this job is sometimes dangerous, in tense situations of danger concern for ones spouse who is also on board can be overwhelming. In short...I don't think the "Religious Right" has anything to do with it. However, you are wrong if you think NASA has never thought about the ramifications on the basis of the work-relationship of the crew. With respect..... Bill
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (02/05/91)
In article <1991Feb1.223556.2313@infonode.ingr.com> drudetb@infonode.ingr.com (Ted B. Drude) writes: >>A much more likely source of trouble than the psychiatrists is management >>worried about the reaction from the religious Right. It is not an accident >>that none of the married couples has ever flown together. > >Oh really? That means NASA has deliberately kept married astronauts from >being on the same flight before, right? Do you have any objective >source for this or are you just blowing some weird biased smoke out of >your own brain? NASA won't discuss the subject in public at all. However, it is a fact that no married couple has ever flown together, and sources I semi-trust tell me that it is deliberate. I consider this highly plausible, because NASA has a long history of being hyper-sensitive to the slightest chance of bad public relations. (For example, plans to include wine with some of the meals on Skylab were scuttled after protests from the WCTU.) >But name ONE member of the "Religious Right" (or any other >religious ""Direction" for that matter) that would object to a MARRIED >couple being together, whether on earth or in orbit, in either a >conjugal or non-conjugal sense. Easy: the folks who think that sex for purposes other than reproduction is sinful. (Maybe *you'd* be willing to try to convince them that sex in space was entirely for reproductive purposes, but I wouldn't be.) -- "Maybe we should tell the truth?" | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology "Surely we aren't that desperate yet." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) (02/05/91)
In article <_2#&{K&@rpi.edu> jimcat@itsgw.rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak) writes: [ Talk about married astronauts deleted ... ] > I don't understand this. I thought the religious right respected marriage > as a sacred institution. As I understand it, the religious right allows sex between married couples to create children, not for fun. Sex in the Shuttle most likely would be for fun only, I doubt that anyone would want to have a child concieved in 0g given the many medical unknowns. -john- -- =============================================================================== John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!rosevax!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john ===============================================================================
smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) (02/05/91)
In article <1991Feb1.223556.2313@infonode.ingr.com>, drudetb@infonode.ingr.com (Ted B. Drude) writes: > Oh really? That means NASA has deliberately kept married astronauts from > being on the same flight before, right? Do you have any objective > source for this or are you just blowing some weird biased smoke out of > your own brain? In the AP story I cited in my original posting on the subject, the NASA spokescritter said just that, in so many words. > But name ONE member of the "Religious Right" (or any other > religious ""Direction" for that matter) that would object to a MARRIED > couple being together, whether on earth or in orbit, in either a > conjugal or non-conjugal sense. The issue, I suspect, would be one of titillation -- that everyone would be snickering about it, joking about, even asking about it at press conferences. After all, look at the reactions on this newsgroup. We've all seen and laughed about the ``experiment'' on ``STS-75'' -- but the reason that piece was so funny is because it was written in very clinical NASAspeak. Imagine this report, or at least the post-flight debriefing. And then imagine the Freedom of Information Act requests that will follow. (Besides, NASA schedules crew times pretty tightly; I don't know if there's enough room in the sleep budget for other activities. One can't have over-tired astronauts, of course, so should NASA issue a rule prohibiting sex in space?)
shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) (02/05/91)
In article <1991Feb4.235309.18013@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: In article <1991Feb1.223556.2313@infonode.ingr.com> drudetb@infonode.ingr.com (Ted B. Drude) writes: >>Oh really? That means NASA has deliberately kept married astronauts from >>being on the same flight before, right? Do you have any objective >>source for this or are you just blowing some weird biased smoke out of >>your own brain? No, he's making his remarks based on information and the fact that no married couples have ever flown together. >NASA won't discuss the subject in public at all. However, it is a fact >that no married couple has ever flown together, and sources I semi-trust >tell me that it is deliberate. I don't know who Henry's sources are, but I can tell you that my sources are astronauts. Yes, indeed, NASA deliberately does not schedule married couples to fly together. I've always assumed that it's because nobody wants to write the flight report or answer questions at the post-flight debriefings. :-) -- Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA Of course I don't speak for NASA "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all"--Unknown US fighter pilot
mac@idacrd.UUCP (Robert McGwier) (02/06/91)
From article <1991Feb4.115208.11590@pbs.org>, by pstinson@pbs.org: > In article <14243@ulysses.att.com>, smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) writes: >> Two astronauts assigned to fly on Endeavour in September 1992, Mark Lee >> and Jan Davis, have just married. NASA is trying to decide what, if >> anything, to do about it... > If they have dependents back on Earth, NASA may not want to risk having both > parents lost on one mission. It is not just NASA. Ever since the three > Sullivan brothers went down with the same ship in World War II, the Navy has > been extremely reluctant to assign brothers to the same vessel. I imagine any > policy eventually formulated regarding spouses will be an extension of this > practice. No one wants one accident to wipe out a whole family. This is false. There are several cases of two parents who were in the active service, active reserves, and now inactive reserves being shipped to the Saudi theatre. I watched a fairly interesting example on `Larry King Live' on CNN last week. Bob -- ____________________________________________________________________________ My opinions are my own no matter | Robert W. McGwier, N4HY who I work for! ;-) | CCR, AMSAT, etc. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
gt6337a@prism.gatech.EDU (Niel M. Bornstein) (02/06/91)
In article <877@idacrd.UUCP> mac@idacrd.UUCP (Robert McGwier) writes: >From article <1991Feb4.115208.11590@pbs.org>, by pstinson@pbs.org: >> Ever since the three >> Sullivan brothers went down with the same ship in World War II, the Navy has >> been extremely reluctant to assign brothers to the same vessel. >This is false. There are several cases of two parents who were in the >active service, active reserves, and now inactive reserves being shipped >to the Saudi theatre. I watched a fairly interesting example on `Larry >King Live' on CNN last week. Not to drag the war into it, but the excuse they give is that all the people over there are volunteers. And there were more than three Sullivans... was it four or five? Anyway, the point is the armed forces are reluctant to draft members of the same family and put them in the same unit. NASA is not drafting anyone, at least as far as I know. If they are, where do I register? Niel -- * Niel M. Bornstein gt6337a@prism.gatech.edu * * Even if I understood the opinions of Georgia Tech, I couldn't explain them. * We are destroying art by destroying the beautiful in life. -- Kakuzo Okakura
gamorris@lescsse.uucp (Gary A. Morris) (02/06/91)
In <1991Feb1.223556.2313@infonode.ingr.com> drudetb@infonode.ingr.com (Ted B. Drude) writes: >>A much more likely source of trouble than the psychiatrists is management >>worried about the reaction from the religious Right. It is not an accident >>that none of the married couples has ever flown together. >Oh really? That means NASA has deliberately kept married astronauts from >being on the same flight before, right? Do you have any objective >source for this or are you just blowing some weird biased smoke out of >your own brain? There is not an official written policy that married astronauts may not fly together, however, past practice has been to not allow it. It is a judgement made by the people doing crew selection, not a formal policy. I have part of this heard this before from one of the married astronauts and have just reconfirmed it with Jeff Carr of the astronaut office at JSC. Jeff also said they are considering whether a formal policy is necessary and what, if anything, should be done in regards to Mark and Jan's flight. He said the main concern with allowing a married couple on the same flight is orphans. I sure hope one of them doesn't lose the chance to fly just because they are married. --GaryM -- Gary Morris Internet: lescsse!gamorris@menudo.uh.edu Lockheed, Houston, Texas UUCP: lobster!lescsse!gamorris Space Station Freedom Internet: gmorris@nasamail.nasa.gov N5QWC/W5RRR Phone: +1 713 283 5195
jeff@sousa.enet.dec.com (jeff bell) (02/06/91)
gamorris@lescsse.uucp (Gary A. Morris) writes: >... the main concern with allowing a married couple >on the same flight is orphans. Didn't someone say that they got married after the schedule was made? In that case, they probably don't have any children. (How long in advance was the roster made up?) -Jeff Bell
GIPP@gecrdvm1.crd.ge.com (02/06/91)
In article <1991Feb5.231553.827@lescsse.uucp>, gamorris@lescsse.uucp (Gary A. Morris) says: > >Jan's flight. He said the main concern with allowing a married couple >on the same flight is orphans. > >--GaryM >-- Brings to mind another scenario: what if an astronaut (whether already chosen for a mission or not) were to be a single parent with a deceased spouse? does this mean he/she is grounded? with all due respect to family/child concerns, it all sounds kind of illegal/immoral. My employer is not permitted by law to question me about my personal life (ie am I married, have children etc) when interviewing me for a job, so I assume it's illegal for him to take such matters into consideration when deciding whether or not to hire me. why should NASA be any different. I assume any married couple/single parent has taken the risks into account when applying for a mission, so why should it be considered by the mission planners? sounds discriminatory to me. Pete
mac@idacrd.UUCP (Robert McGwier) (02/07/91)
From article <21309@hydra.gatech.EDU>, by gt6337a@prism.gatech.EDU (Niel M. Bornstein): > In article <877@idacrd.UUCP> mac@idacrd.UUCP (Robert McGwier) writes: > > Not to drag the war into it, but the excuse they give is that all the people > over there are volunteers. And there were more than three Sullivans... was > it four or five? > There were five Sullivans (if you are talking about the five BOYS who died on one sunk ship). Bob -- ____________________________________________________________________________ My opinions are my own no matter | Robert W. McGwier, N4HY who I work for! ;-) | CCR, AMSAT, etc. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
pstinson@pbs.org (02/07/91)
In article <877@idacrd.UUCP>, mac@idacrd.UUCP (Robert McGwier) writes: > From article <1991Feb4.115208.11590@pbs.org>, by pstinson@pbs.org: >> >> Ever since the five >> Sullivan brothers went down with the same ship in World War II, the Navy has >> been extremely reluctant to assign brothers to the same vessel. > > This is false. There are several cases of two parents who were in the > active service, active reserves, and now inactive reserves being shipped > to the Saudi theatre. I watched a fairly interesting example on `Larry > King Live' on CNN last week. > To the Saudi THEATRE perhaps, but NOT aboard the SAME vessel, aircraft or APC. There is a world of difference between serving in the same theatre and serving aboard the same ship. It is serving aboard the same ship that we are talking about and Larry King wasn't being THAT particular.
michaelm@vax.MCD.3Com.Com (Michael McNeil) (02/08/91)
palmer@nntp-server.caltech.edu (David Palmer) writes: >carpent@SRC.Honeywell.COM (Todd Carpenter) writes: >>Steven> Two astronauts assigned to fly on Endeavour in September 1992, >>Steven> Mark Lee and Jan Davis, have just married. NASA is trying to >>Steven> decide what, if anything, to do about it... >>Congratulate them? >Fly the in-cabin IMAX camera. Do you think the fact that they're scheduled to fly together had anything to do with their decision to get married? ;-) -- Michael McNeil michaelm@vax.DSD.3Com.COM (3comvax.UUCP) 3Com Corporation ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm Santa Clara, California work telephone: (408) 492-1790 x 5-208 "Jumping into hyperspace ain't like dustin' crops, boy." Han Solo, another galaxy
rick@pavlov.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller) (02/17/91)
In article <877@idacrd.UUCP> mac@idacrd.UUCP (Robert McGwier) writes: >From article <1991Feb4.115208.11590@pbs.org>, by pstinson@pbs.org: > >[about policy of close relatives serving on board ships] >This is false. There are several cases of two parents who were in the >active service, active reserves, and now inactive reserves being shipped >to the Saudi theatre. I watched a fairly interesting example on `Larry >King Live' on CNN last week. Sorry, you are incorrect. There is a policy because of the five (not three) Sullivan brothers which were lost when one ship was lost in the South Pacific during WWII. The policy does not prohibit service in the same theater, but does prohibit service in the same unit [I believe]. There is quite a bit of difference between being in the same area [assigned to JSC as an Astronaut] vs being on the same Shuttle mission. [It is not likely that a catastrophe will take out the entire corps but it is much more likely that a Shuttle accident could wipe out a crew. This type of accident is what the policy is designed to prohibit and this is the military policy used]. I believe that it does apply to ground units also to the degree that brothers cannot serve in the same Company. -- Richard H. Miller Email: rick@bcm.tmc.edu Asst. Dir. for Technical Support Voice: (713)798-3532 Baylor College of Medicine US Mail: One Baylor Plaza, 302H Houston, Texas 77030