I never thought much about it (other than being jealous), but recently the windmills of my mind began churning: I understand a local Chevy dealership gave each (Mercury?) astronaut a brand new Corvette. However, wasn’t it illegal for a US Government employee to accept such an expensive gift, no matter how innocent or good-spirited this gesture was?
I know today, US Government employees cannot accept gifts over a minimal amount. I would assume this is a long-standing practice. Maybe a Doper Astro-nut ot Corvette fan can give us the facts? Thanks!
From this article, it really just comes down to, the rules were different then.
Today, modern ethics rules mean that a similar $1 lease program couldn’t come back for modern astronauts. But GM did half-jokingly bring the program back for retired astronauts, to whom NASA ethics policy would no longer apply.
The Mercury Seven got more than cars. They had a deal with Life Magazine that gave them $25K/year for exclusive rights to their stories. They were also given free homes in Houston when NASA opened up the operations center there.
I, personally, believe that society should be able to reward people who fly spaceships, or some such, with Corvettes, or some such, without compromising the integrity of the space program. But maybe I’m just a dreamer.
Bringing this one forward, because I’m binge-watching the HBO series, “From the Earth to the Moon,” and it seems that every astronaut has a Corvette. I seem to recall, from history, that all astronauts had a Corvette.
Why? Were the cars gifts from Chevrolet? From a local Chevy dealer in Houston or Florida? If an astronaut did not want a Corvette, was he given his choice of any other Chevrolet? Or any other car, for that matter?
I’ve never driven a Chevy Corvette, but I have ridden in one; and I have driven a late-model Chevy Camaro. Neither appealed to me. If I was an astronaut, and Chevrolet or a local dealer offered me a free Corvette, I’d respond with, “No thanks, but I’ll take a Tahoe or a Suburban or a Silverado pickup.” Something more useful, in other words.
A dealership close to the Space Center in Florida; see the link. I suppose that technically the cars were not gifts since they had to cough up $1 per year.
Arrant corruption is the only explanation I can think of. It should never have been allowed, and even when it was dangled in front of them people like Neil Armstrong should have had the integrity to refuse and pay for their own vehicles. This isn’t like when they all wore Omega Speedmasters that were NASA issue.
These were people that were putting their lives on the line. NASA let it happen because they wanted them to feel like rock stars so as to encourage other very bright and smart people to try and become astronauts.
Did Neil ‘steal’ moon rock to give the car dealership who sold them on Ebay? (And yes, I know there wasn’t an Ebay back then.) Did the spray paint the name of the dealership on the LEM?
Generally speaking, government employees may not accept gifts given because of their official position.
And you are definitely not supposed to accept gifts from the same or different sources so frequently that a reasonable person would believe you are using your public office for private gain. A $1 Corvette every year, for example.
Did the owner of the dealership just coincidentally happen to be an extremely generous personal friend of each of the astronauts? Are we sure he absolutely in no way got any publicity or benefit in any way, shape, or form?
I’m sure he did get publicity for it. But what harm came to the government? What did that cost the government? How was the taxpayer harmed?
The majority of these rules are in place so that I don’t get a $1,000 dinner for my wife and I, and then I push a contract to DPRK Inc. If you could prove that Armstrong was involved in the contracting of leased vehicles to NASA and that he pushed business to this dealership I’m with you. But jumping on the excitement of the times by leasing a car to Armstong for $1 seems like a crime looking for a victim.
That’s too lax a standard for anti-corruption measures. The concern is that if public servants are allowed to accept donations, they are personally befitting from their job, in ways that are not provided for by the law that governs their employment. And, these standards have to apply across the board. If not, the concept of making payments to the public servants begins to be entrenched, creating a culture of corruption. “If Armstrong gets a car for his job, why can’t I get some extra money for my job?”
What’s the harm if Ivanka Trump uses her position in the White House to sell her products? Can you prove the taxpayers lost anything?
What’s the harm in Clarence Thomas getting free vacations, a free house for his mother, and free tuition for his son? Can you prove he ruled in favour of the guy he gave him those things?
Private profit from a public office is corruption.
The Right Stuff (book, not movie) detailed a bit of a rebellion in the ranks near the beginning of the program, because the astronauts couldn’t fly and therefore were taking a pay cut. Eventually some trainer jets were dug up so they could fly and get paid and stay “proficient” at flying.
I’m not sure how to look up what those pay grades made in the 50’s, but The Right Stuff asserts it wasn’t a whole lot. And if I’m not mistaken, housing, meals, lots of things were provided to active military that wasn’t available when these guys were detached to NASA.
Should they get free cars? Probably not. But they were unique positions financially, and not good ones.
Eventually astronauts became civilian employees of NASA, but I understand that was much later.
They couldn’t get life insurance policies, either. Strange to say, but State Farm decided the risk for Astronaut Coverage wasn’t going to pencil out. They were covered under the military SGLI I suppose, but this would have been barely adequate to ensure their family was taken care of.
That was one reason they were stuffing first day covers in their personal kits. They wanted to have a side gig to make money. Even today they sell or auction autographs, flown items with provenance for cash to help make ends meet. The ethics concerns make sense, but it can be contradictory.
We still don’t know the brand of golf ball Alan Shepard brought with him for his famous drives on the Moon.
From a pure direct calculation, they were probably right: Astronauting is a very risky business. But I’d think that, even if they had to pay out early on every one of those policies, it’d still be worth the advertising value.
And if they’re just offering astronauts the same rate as everyone else, it’s much harder to make the corruption argument, because it’s not like there’s exactly precedent to say that astronaut life insurance should cost more.