NASA Rejection Letter to Woman in 1962 Was Blunt

What the early NASA program did in the 50's and 60's was only made possible by accepting risks that would curdle the blood of today's risk-averse NASA administration. The U.S. has a long history of very chivalrously protecting its women-folk from such "front-line" service. It wasn't until 1988 that the first female pilot was cleared for combat in the USAF, let alone test-pilot duty! The U.S. army, unlike many of its allies, still does not permit women in front line combat, although they have announced their intention to change this.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/24/us-usa-military-wo...

Reflecting the danger of the job, the first few classes of astronauts were required, by president Eisenhower's directive, to be military test pilots. These were men whose profession necessarily required them to accept a large degree of risk. Had one of these early missions resulted in fatalities the government would have been able to draw on past experience explaining the death of test pilots to the public. This requirement would not change until 1965 when scientists holding PhD's would be permitted into the program. This explains why NASA was not considering women in 1962. None existed that met the President's requirements. If you want to call somebody sexist for rejecting Miss Kelly, look no further than the oval office!

Valentina Tereshkova, for comparison, was not a military test pilot, or even a pilot at all. She was experienced with parachuting, but only in an amateur capacity. She did not compete with men and become an astronaut purely based on merit. The USSR's space program decided specifically to send a woman into orbit as a political statement and to see how female physiology stood up to space travel. Several women were considered for this honor and Tereshkova was chosen as much for her proletariat background as her parachuting experience. The first woman in space was a symbol, nothing more.

The second woman in space, and the first to perform a space walk, would not come along for another 19 years. Svetlana Yevgenyevna Savitskaya was a test pilot and a real cosmonaut, not just a symbol. She deserves the credit Tereshkova usually gets. Sally Ride would become the U.S.'s first female astronaut a year after Savitskaya's first mission, but this was only made possible by the perception of relative safety offered by the shuttle program and NASA's creation of the mission specialist class of astronauts. Had the challenger disaster occurred prior to Ride's first mission, it's very possible the U.S. might still have yet to send a female astronaut into space.

And barely over a year later, Valentina Tereshkova kicks NASA in the teeth. Wonder how Mr. Lloyd felt when that happened.

> Original Mercury astronaut Deke Slayton wrote in 1970 to future NASA astronaut Marsha Ivins, ‘The exact time when we would seriously consider women is indefinite, but I am sure it is inevitable.’”

NASA was most definitely a boys club back in the day. I mean, you can see the old footage of the guys dealing with the Apollo 13 mess ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxOKVHhFVJU whoever chose the music for that should have been fired ) you can see just how much testosterone was in the air... along with the cigarette smoke.

It's a strange dichotomy that the "Free world" was less free to women at the time than a Communist country.

Sex discrimination is serious issue, but there are also other forms of discrimination nobody cares about.

European Space Agency does not take job applications from people over 55. Not even for desk based jobs such as administrator or software developer. And this is public agency which supports equal oportunities :-)

http://www.esa.int/hr/PDF/ESA-VN-ESTEC-2012-091,REV.1.pdf

The NASA rejection is somewhat unsurprising, because at that point in the space program astronauts were drawn from the military. Of Apollo 11's three crew, all three were in the military, and Armstrong and Aldrin both saw combat in Korea. It wasn't until 1993 that the Air Force allowed women to fly fighters on combat missions.

It's actually quite amazing to me how far women have come since the 1960's. They went from essentially zero representation in the business world to occupying substantial positions of power in just a few generations.

There was a good article by James Oberg in The Space Review about this, recently:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2310/1

The response to the original letter seems very blunt, but the original letter was written on the day of John Glenn's flight - back then, the requirement to be an astronaut was to be a test pilot.

To be fair to the 1962 NASA, they did say "women", not "girls." It's still blatant sexism, but there's need to hyperbolize.

Unless of course all you care about is generating linkbait.

At least it was not a resume black hole. It even came with a real signature...

Frankly I think the letter is worded fine, and makes strong effort to be polite. If one is suggesting the exclusion of women astronauts is the issue, then that is a different thing entirely.

Funny story, my grandfather was an engineering grad who joined the RCAF during WW2. He survived the war, and soon afterwards - I presume during the Gemini recruitment drive - heard that NASA was looking for people with, basically, his CV - technical/engineering background with piloting skills.

So, he applied, but was rejected. The reason? He was an alien, and NASA could not hire aliens. Seriously.

Wouldn't a woman get a similar response from the Army if applying to join a front-line combat unit? (assuming such a policy of exclusion still exists).

the "nor do we plan to have one" seemed unnecessary and mean.

Different era is different. Plenty written today, perfectly in tune with current right-thinking cutting-edge mores, will appear comically quaint and unjust 50 years from now.