I was watching some promotional extras from the movie The Martian recently. One scene was excerpts from the psychological evaluations of each crewmember. Commander Lewis - played by Jessica Chastain - responded to a question as to her ability to handle the stress of command by talking about her time commanding a sub, listening to the grinding and creaking of the sea, trying to get in.
Which made me realize how much in common a spacecraft - especially small ones like the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo capsules - had with submarines, and wonder why, back when NASA was recruiting the first astronauts for the Mercury and Gemini missions, they didn’t look among Navy submariners? Sailors who were accustomed to spending long times in cramped, claustrophobic environments cheek by jowl with their shipmates, who were exceedingly conscious of the importance of hull integrity, who were practiced in navigating a vessel through a lethal medium, seem like ideal candidates for early spacecraft.
Google led me to an article about Capt. Stephen G. Bowen, who became the first submarine officer in the Astronaut Corps in 2000, participating in three missions to the International Space Station. He said that when he took his first, er, float into the ISS, he noted that the facility smelled just like a submarine. Some of the technology was familiar, as well:
So why then did NASA only look for astronauts among pilots and naval aviators? Was it an ingrained sense of “fighter jocks are the best of the best”? The assumption that spacecraft were just another advancement of airplanes?
At this remove, I doubt this will have a clear-cut answer, which is why I’ve put it in IMHO. But mods, feel free to move it if you think it fits better in Factual Questions.
Because they still needed to be able to fly the spacecraft. The process for flying a spacecraft might be very different from that for an airplane, but I expect that the skills are similar. Submarines never need to right themselves in a matter of seconds while undergoing extreme G forces. Or at least, if they do, they’re probably already dead.
A space capsule is more like an aircraft than a submarine. Submarines are also highly technical and require split-second action in a casualty situation, but submariners are trained to perform their own specific roles and work together as part of a large team. When your team is one, two, or three guys, it makes sense to work with groups who are trained as pilot, copilot, navigator. When your team is thirty or fifty guys, submarines make more sense.
If NASA had developed in a more Sci-Fi direction with nuclear powered rockets sending large crews into space, they probably would have gone to war with Admiral Rickover trying to poach from his Navy nuclear power program.
The answer(s) are fairly well documented actually, if not widely known. Very early on during the conceptual stages there was some talk at least, of recruiting mountain climbers, artists, race car drivers and things like that. Poets! How else, the arguments were made, could the vastness of Space be adequately described without a Poet on board?
Eisenhower put an end to the nonsense and decided that the selection pool would be made from active duty military jet pilots. Test pilots. Test pilots with college degrees. Who aren’t over 6 feet tall, etc.
At the time, the test pilots at Edwards and similar enjoyed great careers. NASA was seen as a huge gamble and also a huge risk to military career at best. Chuck Yeager has been described as less than encouraging when he found out someone in his command was thinking about punching out and joining the astronaut corps.
As others have pointed out, submariners don’t have that much in common except claustrophobia, teamwork, working with systems in enclosed space. Whereas astronauts need much more aviation know-how.
I’m sorry, but I don’t see that at all. The relationship between those capsules and their crew was closer to that between a suit and their wearer (within an order of magnitude at least) than a submarine and its crew.
I mean, I have heard that comparison being made between submarines and fictional spaceships and I could perhaps see it applying to the space shuttle and service aboard space stations as well, but not so much with Mercury/Gemini/Apollo
About two to three years ago, the YouTube channel, “Smarter Every Day” did a series on what life was like aboard a US nuclear submarine. There are maybe seven or eight installments in all. Look for them; they are fascinating.
One thing that stands out is that compared to the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo spacecraft, there is a surprising amount of room on a submarine. No, you’d never get up a game of baseball or football in one, but you can at least go for a walk. And if the installment about the galley is any indication, the food would be a lot better. Not to mention the bathroom facilities. In any event, nowhere near as claustrophobic as a spacecraft.
If claustrophobia was a criteria they would have recruited pilots from the B-58 Hustler. It consisted of 3 individual cockpits in series. The back 2 positions only had tiny side windows. I get anxious just looking at the plane.
It isn’t an answer to the OP, but this story has some adjacency to it:
When NASA starting putting up “payload specialists”, they didn’t go through the same astronaut program as the rest. They couldn’t fly the Shuttle, and their medical and psychological evaluations weren’t at the same level.
One such payload specialist had some kind of psychological break, and claimed that if he couldn’t finish his experiment, he’s “not going back.”
Whatever that was supposed to mean, it’s a little concerning when there’s an easily-opened hatch to the vacuum of space. So they put duct tape on it in case the guy had any ideas. On some later flights, they put a padlock on it. NASA claimed to the media that it was to prevent it opening in case someone bumped into it, but that wasn’t the case.
Whether submariners would be a better fit, I’ve no idea. The concern here was for people that didn’t go through the full astronaut training and evaluation. But even normal astronauts had some mental breakdowns here and there.
Yes, there was a huge support system for the astronauts; lots of people who worked on training, simulation, contingency planning, and monitoring everything about the spacecraft and rocket during a flight. But on those first missions, the astronaut was up there along. He didn’t have to delegate tasks and get feedback from his crew members.
Test pilots also made a lot of sense when the scientific aspects of spaceflight were taken into account. They were already used to being observant, meticulous, and following complicated testing regimes as part of testing regular jet airplanes. Part of test piloting was often dealing with poorly controlled/uncontrolled aircraft. They were typically engineers by training as well.
Spaceflight was a natural extension of that sort of work, IMO.
I actually read an article a few years ago that advocated that the newly formed Space Force take a page from the Navy and set up its rank structure similarly, with Ensigns, Lieutenants, Commanders, Admirals, Petty Officers, etc… instead of the USAF/Army style rank structure. The argument was essentially that by going that direction, they’d draw a clear demarcation between themselves and the USAF, as well as set themselves up for the future, when crewed ships are expected, and may follow some of the nautical traditions.