[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] It ended up being total mass per year, the kinds of experiments and research that we wanted to do as an Agency on the International Space Station. Those were times within NASA when we were actually taking stock of our entire research portfolio and redirecting it towards systems development, testing, and evaluation on ISS to allow us to develop those systems necessary for exploration. ESAS scoped our research portfolio down to a point where it was focused heavily on the transportation systems and exploration beyond low-Earth orbit.

[Assistant] It almost sounds simple, doesn’t it?

[User] Almost, yes.

[Assistant] Did you continue your role along with the selection? Were you involved in that? Can you share some of the details of how that progressed forward?

[User] Yes. We had the Announcement come out in January of 2006. Between February and June I had to go off and do other stuff, so I wasn’t as heavily involved in the first round of selection as I would’ve loved to have been. Being at Headquarters, you get dragged off to do things every now and then, so between February and August I really wasn’t as involved. I got heavily involved three or five days before the [selection] announcement again. That was really exciting. I was involved during the briefings coming back and the team reporting out to NASA Headquarters as we were moving towards selection, and was part of the selection team as we moved forward.\n\n It was really fun and interesting. [Scott J.] “Doc” [Horowitz, Associate Administrator for the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate] actually had each of the partners come up and brief him prior to the selection, which was kind of unusual. It was really kind of interesting to watch the interplay between the potential partners and NASA management part of the selection. I managed the rollout at Headquarters between Headquarters, OMB, the White House, and the Hill. Then the general rollout as well, with the selection being made in August of 2006.

[Assistant] Can you describe what that means, the rollout?


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] Almost, yes.

[Assistant] Did you continue your role along with the selection? Were you involved in that? Can you share some of the details of how that progressed forward?

[User] Yes. We had the Announcement come out in January of 2006. Between February and June I had to go off and do other stuff, so I wasn’t as heavily involved in the first round of selection as I would’ve loved to have been. Being at Headquarters, you get dragged off to do things every now and then, so between February and August I really wasn’t as involved. I got heavily involved three or five days before the [selection] announcement again. That was really exciting. I was involved during the briefings coming back and the team reporting out to NASA Headquarters as we were moving towards selection, and was part of the selection team as we moved forward.\n\n It was really fun and interesting. [Scott J.] “Doc” [Horowitz, Associate Administrator for the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate] actually had each of the partners come up and brief him prior to the selection, which was kind of unusual. It was really kind of interesting to watch the interplay between the potential partners and NASA management part of the selection. I managed the rollout at Headquarters between Headquarters, OMB, the White House, and the Hill. Then the general rollout as well, with the selection being made in August of 2006.

[Assistant] Can you describe what that means, the rollout?

[User] It’s just managing the process by which we let Congress know what we selected. Getting them in, briefing them, developing the briefings—allowing OMB, the White House, to know where we are and what we’re doing. Keep them up to speed, and then managing the press releases and managing everything associated with making our decision public. We had a press conference downstairs, press releases, briefings up at the Hill, and briefings here in the building with representatives from the Hill.

[Assistant] Was part of your job working closely with the Public Affairs Office [PAO] as well?


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] It’s just managing the process by which we let Congress know what we selected. Getting them in, briefing them, developing the briefings—allowing OMB, the White House, to know where we are and what we’re doing. Keep them up to speed, and then managing the press releases and managing everything associated with making our decision public. We had a press conference downstairs, press releases, briefings up at the Hill, and briefings here in the building with representatives from the Hill.

[Assistant] Was part of your job working closely with the Public Affairs Office [PAO] as well?

[User] Yes. At Headquarters you have to work with Legal, OLIA [Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs], PAO. All those organizations were involved in rolling the decision out.

[Assistant] You mentioned you got started, then you got pulled off, and then you got back in. Do you recall what your thoughts were of the progress that had been made in the time that you had sat in those meetings until they had actually put all of this together?

[User] It was progressing on schedule and faster than we’d seen anything happen previously. Remember, we had the draft Announcement go out in November or December [2005]. The final went out in January, and we awarded in August. Normal procurements can take years to get through the system, and to be able to do that in that small number of months was just phenomenal. It was really a credit to Alan and the entire team to get through that entire process in that timeframe.

[Assistant] Were you part of Doc Horowitz’s selection committee, that executive committee? Can you share the types of things that were discussed? I’m just curious if there were things that stood out.


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] Yes. At Headquarters you have to work with Legal, OLIA [Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs], PAO. All those organizations were involved in rolling the decision out.

[Assistant] You mentioned you got started, then you got pulled off, and then you got back in. Do you recall what your thoughts were of the progress that had been made in the time that you had sat in those meetings until they had actually put all of this together?

[User] It was progressing on schedule and faster than we’d seen anything happen previously. Remember, we had the draft Announcement go out in November or December [2005]. The final went out in January, and we awarded in August. Normal procurements can take years to get through the system, and to be able to do that in that small number of months was just phenomenal. It was really a credit to Alan and the entire team to get through that entire process in that timeframe.

[Assistant] Were you part of Doc Horowitz’s selection committee, that executive committee? Can you share the types of things that were discussed? I’m just curious if there were things that stood out.

[User] I’d rather not.

[Assistant] Okay. Talk about the milestones and why that was an important aspect of the COTS program, why those were set up the way that they were.


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] It was progressing on schedule and faster than we’d seen anything happen previously. Remember, we had the draft Announcement go out in November or December [2005]. The final went out in January, and we awarded in August. Normal procurements can take years to get through the system, and to be able to do that in that small number of months was just phenomenal. It was really a credit to Alan and the entire team to get through that entire process in that timeframe.

[Assistant] Were you part of Doc Horowitz’s selection committee, that executive committee? Can you share the types of things that were discussed? I’m just curious if there were things that stood out.

[User] I’d rather not.

[Assistant] Okay. Talk about the milestones and why that was an important aspect of the COTS program, why those were set up the way that they were.

[User] I guess the first thing to do is step back and say, this is not a NASA DDTE effort. This is not a NASA development effort. Under this program NASA was acting as a highly interested investor. As part of developing the strategies for moving forward, we wanted to make sure we had understandings that the partners were making progress—financially, programmatically, and technically—and we decided to tie payments to those milestones.\n\n We also decided to use a Space Act Agreement as a partnership mechanism, with the thought that it seemed to be the most appropriate tool to allow our partners to maintain the kinds of intellectual property rights that they wanted, with control of developing the hardware and developing the system. NASA would function as an investor for the development of their systems. Again, from the cargo perspective, the hardware systems all remained within ownership of the companies. All of the intellectual property rights are owned by the companies. NASA is buying services once they’re successfully tested.

[Assistant] It seems like the legal team really had a lot of upfront work to do.


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] I’d rather not.

[Assistant] Okay. Talk about the milestones and why that was an important aspect of the COTS program, why those were set up the way that they were.

[User] I guess the first thing to do is step back and say, this is not a NASA DDTE effort. This is not a NASA development effort. Under this program NASA was acting as a highly interested investor. As part of developing the strategies for moving forward, we wanted to make sure we had understandings that the partners were making progress—financially, programmatically, and technically—and we decided to tie payments to those milestones.\n\n We also decided to use a Space Act Agreement as a partnership mechanism, with the thought that it seemed to be the most appropriate tool to allow our partners to maintain the kinds of intellectual property rights that they wanted, with control of developing the hardware and developing the system. NASA would function as an investor for the development of their systems. Again, from the cargo perspective, the hardware systems all remained within ownership of the companies. All of the intellectual property rights are owned by the companies. NASA is buying services once they’re successfully tested.

[Assistant] It seems like the legal team really had a lot of upfront work to do.

[User] They did. We worked with the legal team extensively, both at JSC and NASA Headquarters. They did a fantastic job pulling together the strategies that allowed us to actually implement this. It was a really coordinated effort between the Headquarters and JSC legal teams, and the program office down at JSC.

[Assistant] Talk about procurement’s role in this, because it was certainly not a traditional procurement. I’m thinking procurement had to have at least some buy-in to how this was going to be done.


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] I guess the first thing to do is step back and say, this is not a NASA DDTE effort. This is not a NASA development effort. Under this program NASA was acting as a highly interested investor. As part of developing the strategies for moving forward, we wanted to make sure we had understandings that the partners were making progress—financially, programmatically, and technically—and we decided to tie payments to those milestones.\n\n We also decided to use a Space Act Agreement as a partnership mechanism, with the thought that it seemed to be the most appropriate tool to allow our partners to maintain the kinds of intellectual property rights that they wanted, with control of developing the hardware and developing the system. NASA would function as an investor for the development of their systems. Again, from the cargo perspective, the hardware systems all remained within ownership of the companies. All of the intellectual property rights are owned by the companies. NASA is buying services once they’re successfully tested.

[Assistant] It seems like the legal team really had a lot of upfront work to do.

[User] They did. We worked with the legal team extensively, both at JSC and NASA Headquarters. They did a fantastic job pulling together the strategies that allowed us to actually implement this. It was a really coordinated effort between the Headquarters and JSC legal teams, and the program office down at JSC.

[Assistant] Talk about procurement’s role in this, because it was certainly not a traditional procurement. I’m thinking procurement had to have at least some buy-in to how this was going to be done.

[User] We kept procurement involved completely through the system, and used many of the same processes that procurement would use in a nominal procurement. Though it wasn’t a procurement, they were heavily involved as we stepped through the processes to make sure that everybody knew what was going on.

[Assistant] It’s not procurement, but it’s still financial. Maybe it was also the financial offices?


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] They did. We worked with the legal team extensively, both at JSC and NASA Headquarters. They did a fantastic job pulling together the strategies that allowed us to actually implement this. It was a really coordinated effort between the Headquarters and JSC legal teams, and the program office down at JSC.

[Assistant] Talk about procurement’s role in this, because it was certainly not a traditional procurement. I’m thinking procurement had to have at least some buy-in to how this was going to be done.

[User] We kept procurement involved completely through the system, and used many of the same processes that procurement would use in a nominal procurement. Though it wasn’t a procurement, they were heavily involved as we stepped through the processes to make sure that everybody knew what was going on.

[Assistant] It’s not procurement, but it’s still financial. Maybe it was also the financial offices?

[User] Not really the financial. We wanted to make sure that procurement was riding along with us, so that everybody knew what was going on. Technically we didn’t really have to involve them, but it was just the right thing to do.

[Assistant] It’s good for everybody to know what’s going on in that whole package. I think you’ve already inferred that there was a lot of communication between Headquarters and JSC, with the program office down there. Can you talk more about what your role was, to facilitate communications?


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] We kept procurement involved completely through the system, and used many of the same processes that procurement would use in a nominal procurement. Though it wasn’t a procurement, they were heavily involved as we stepped through the processes to make sure that everybody knew what was going on.

[Assistant] It’s not procurement, but it’s still financial. Maybe it was also the financial offices?

[User] Not really the financial. We wanted to make sure that procurement was riding along with us, so that everybody knew what was going on. Technically we didn’t really have to involve them, but it was just the right thing to do.

[Assistant] It’s good for everybody to know what’s going on in that whole package. I think you’ve already inferred that there was a lot of communication between Headquarters and JSC, with the program office down there. Can you talk more about what your role was, to facilitate communications?

[User] Yes. That was totally different, too. Where in a typical NASA program you would have monthlies and quarterlies and periodic briefings up to Headquarters, we didn’t have any of that. I was thought of more as a team member than a guy at Headquarters who you out-briefed periodically. I spoke with Alan and the team on an every-couple-day basis. It was a different kind of Headquarters program, remote program office setup, all the way around. We didn’t have formal meetings, we just got together when we needed to. If something happened, I got immediate notification of what was going on at any given time. There wasn’t a lot of formal back and forth. It was really a tightly coupled, very small organization, which I think is another key to why they were successful.

[Assistant] How were you viewed here? If someone wanted information from Headquarters, did they talk to you, or did they go directly to Alan?


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] Not really the financial. We wanted to make sure that procurement was riding along with us, so that everybody knew what was going on. Technically we didn’t really have to involve them, but it was just the right thing to do.

[Assistant] It’s good for everybody to know what’s going on in that whole package. I think you’ve already inferred that there was a lot of communication between Headquarters and JSC, with the program office down there. Can you talk more about what your role was, to facilitate communications?

[User] Yes. That was totally different, too. Where in a typical NASA program you would have monthlies and quarterlies and periodic briefings up to Headquarters, we didn’t have any of that. I was thought of more as a team member than a guy at Headquarters who you out-briefed periodically. I spoke with Alan and the team on an every-couple-day basis. It was a different kind of Headquarters program, remote program office setup, all the way around. We didn’t have formal meetings, we just got together when we needed to. If something happened, I got immediate notification of what was going on at any given time. There wasn’t a lot of formal back and forth. It was really a tightly coupled, very small organization, which I think is another key to why they were successful.

[Assistant] How were you viewed here? If someone wanted information from Headquarters, did they talk to you, or did they go directly to Alan?

[User] No, generally contacted me. We set it up between Alan and me. I managed that because I could better understand what’s going on here at Headquarters. Again, it helped being up-to-date on a fairly regular basis. We could field questions and field issues relatively quickly, without having to bother the program office. The program wasn’t set up to have a large contingent of folks to do that interfacing, so we purposely put together the processes that would allow us to accomplish this with a very small number of people.

[Assistant] Did you see yourself as a conduit, in a sense?


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] Yes. That was totally different, too. Where in a typical NASA program you would have monthlies and quarterlies and periodic briefings up to Headquarters, we didn’t have any of that. I was thought of more as a team member than a guy at Headquarters who you out-briefed periodically. I spoke with Alan and the team on an every-couple-day basis. It was a different kind of Headquarters program, remote program office setup, all the way around. We didn’t have formal meetings, we just got together when we needed to. If something happened, I got immediate notification of what was going on at any given time. There wasn’t a lot of formal back and forth. It was really a tightly coupled, very small organization, which I think is another key to why they were successful.

[Assistant] How were you viewed here? If someone wanted information from Headquarters, did they talk to you, or did they go directly to Alan?

[User] No, generally contacted me. We set it up between Alan and me. I managed that because I could better understand what’s going on here at Headquarters. Again, it helped being up-to-date on a fairly regular basis. We could field questions and field issues relatively quickly, without having to bother the program office. The program wasn’t set up to have a large contingent of folks to do that interfacing, so we purposely put together the processes that would allow us to accomplish this with a very small number of people.

[Assistant] Did you see yourself as a conduit, in a sense?

[User] Oh yes.

[Assistant] If there were questions that were coming from the legislative areas and so forth, did they all come back through you?


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] No, generally contacted me. We set it up between Alan and me. I managed that because I could better understand what’s going on here at Headquarters. Again, it helped being up-to-date on a fairly regular basis. We could field questions and field issues relatively quickly, without having to bother the program office. The program wasn’t set up to have a large contingent of folks to do that interfacing, so we purposely put together the processes that would allow us to accomplish this with a very small number of people.

[Assistant] Did you see yourself as a conduit, in a sense?

[User] Oh yes.

[Assistant] If there were questions that were coming from the legislative areas and so forth, did they all come back through you?

[User] Correct. Any questions that came in from the Hill or came in from the White House all came through me.

[Assistant] Were you getting many questions through those early days, or was it somewhat under the radar at that time?


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] Oh yes.

[Assistant] If there were questions that were coming from the legislative areas and so forth, did they all come back through you?

[User] Correct. Any questions that came in from the Hill or came in from the White House all came through me.

[Assistant] Were you getting many questions through those early days, or was it somewhat under the radar at that time?

[User] People knew about it, but it was viewed as not viable. I think in general it was viewed by NASA as just a bunch of wacky people doing wacky things. We were kind of left alone, which I think was another benefit that allowed us to be successful. By being unencumbered by lots of oversight at program levels and Headquarters levels it allowed us to very quietly do our job, thus allowing our partner to do their job.

[Assistant] Do you feel like there was a point in time where the view of what the COTS program could produce changed?


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] I think because it was under the radar. It was small. It wasn’t a huge program, so there weren’t large amounts of money dumping in and out of any one district, two districts, or three districts around the country. It eventually provided a need that NASA wanted. Remember, back when we started COTS there was no need for it within NASA. It was only after the Constellation Program canceled the cargo version of the Orion capsule that the primary role of transporting cargo to Space Station was shifted from a NASA-developed system to the COTS systems. I think that was a big turning point, where the partners became the primary systems for transporting cargo to and from Station. That was a big deal, that was a big shift within the Agency.

[Assistant] How did that impact your work, once that shift had been made?

[User] Not much. We had our milestones lined out, we knew we had our plans moving forward. At that point we were starting to go through integration with ISS, the visiting vehicle integration. It really didn’t impact our world much at all, that I remember. I didn’t really get any additional questions or a lot more reporting upstairs. Just kept trucking along.

[Assistant] When the ISS produced its requirements document for allowing these visiting vehicles, were you involved in those processes as well?

[User] Oh, [Space Station Program (SSP)] 50808? I was not involved in 50808, specifically because that’s a Station program and they were going to be doing the integration for visiting vehicles and buying the services, so that’s a different organization. We were just responsible for enabling the capability. [SSP] 50808 was based on the work that Alan’s team and our team pulled together initially. It became the basis for the development of 50808, but Station’s always owned the interface requirements and safety requirements for Station.

[Assistant] Speaking of safety, you mentioned that out of that first 12 people that were in that room, one was a safety rep. Can you share how the safety aspect has been viewed and/or integrated into the COTS program?


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] Not much. We had our milestones lined out, we knew we had our plans moving forward. At that point we were starting to go through integration with ISS, the visiting vehicle integration. It really didn’t impact our world much at all, that I remember. I didn’t really get any additional questions or a lot more reporting upstairs. Just kept trucking along.

[Assistant] When the ISS produced its requirements document for allowing these visiting vehicles, were you involved in those processes as well?

[User] Oh, [Space Station Program (SSP)] 50808? I was not involved in 50808, specifically because that’s a Station program and they were going to be doing the integration for visiting vehicles and buying the services, so that’s a different organization. We were just responsible for enabling the capability. [SSP] 50808 was based on the work that Alan’s team and our team pulled together initially. It became the basis for the development of 50808, but Station’s always owned the interface requirements and safety requirements for Station.

[Assistant] Speaking of safety, you mentioned that out of that first 12 people that were in that room, one was a safety rep. Can you share how the safety aspect has been viewed and/or integrated into the COTS program?

[User] Safety is primary. From day one we had a safety representative assigned to Alan’s office, the program office down at Johnson Space Center, as well as the safety organization associated with ISS. Each of our partners has to go through the integrated safety system for ISS before they’re allowed to fly to the Station. Just like every vehicle that has gone to the Station—[European Space Agency] ATVs [Automated Transfer Vehicles], [Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency] HTVs [H-II Transfer Vehicles], [Russian Federal Space Agency] Progresses [cargo vehicles], [Russian] Soyuz [crew vehicle], and even the Shuttle—had to go through the same processes that our commercial partners have had to go through. It’s right up on par with that.

[Assistant] You’re here at Headquarters and the safety person was at JSC—was that safety person connected with the Headquarters safety as well?


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] Oh, [Space Station Program (SSP)] 50808? I was not involved in 50808, specifically because that’s a Station program and they were going to be doing the integration for visiting vehicles and buying the services, so that’s a different organization. We were just responsible for enabling the capability. [SSP] 50808 was based on the work that Alan’s team and our team pulled together initially. It became the basis for the development of 50808, but Station’s always owned the interface requirements and safety requirements for Station.

[Assistant] Speaking of safety, you mentioned that out of that first 12 people that were in that room, one was a safety rep. Can you share how the safety aspect has been viewed and/or integrated into the COTS program?

[User] Safety is primary. From day one we had a safety representative assigned to Alan’s office, the program office down at Johnson Space Center, as well as the safety organization associated with ISS. Each of our partners has to go through the integrated safety system for ISS before they’re allowed to fly to the Station. Just like every vehicle that has gone to the Station—[European Space Agency] ATVs [Automated Transfer Vehicles], [Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency] HTVs [H-II Transfer Vehicles], [Russian Federal Space Agency] Progresses [cargo vehicles], [Russian] Soyuz [crew vehicle], and even the Shuttle—had to go through the same processes that our commercial partners have had to go through. It’s right up on par with that.

[Assistant] You’re here at Headquarters and the safety person was at JSC—was that safety person connected with the Headquarters safety as well?

[User] Yes, that’s correct. That continues to this day, and we have a really good working relationship with the safety office [Office of Safety and Mission Assurance] here.

[Assistant] Do you have a role working with the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] as they work with your COTS partners?


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] Safety is primary. From day one we had a safety representative assigned to Alan’s office, the program office down at Johnson Space Center, as well as the safety organization associated with ISS. Each of our partners has to go through the integrated safety system for ISS before they’re allowed to fly to the Station. Just like every vehicle that has gone to the Station—[European Space Agency] ATVs [Automated Transfer Vehicles], [Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency] HTVs [H-II Transfer Vehicles], [Russian Federal Space Agency] Progresses [cargo vehicles], [Russian] Soyuz [crew vehicle], and even the Shuttle—had to go through the same processes that our commercial partners have had to go through. It’s right up on par with that.

[Assistant] You’re here at Headquarters and the safety person was at JSC—was that safety person connected with the Headquarters safety as well?

[User] Yes, that’s correct. That continues to this day, and we have a really good working relationship with the safety office [Office of Safety and Mission Assurance] here.

[Assistant] Do you have a role working with the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] as they work with your COTS partners?

[User] We brought FAA in early as well, as one of the members of the team, knowing that they [the commercial partners] were going to be FAA-licensed. We worked with them initially to establish the processes and roles, not on a day-to-day basis for the cargo operations. Again, once they’re successful the operations are managed by ISS. They work with FAA for the missions going to ISS.\n\n For demonstrations we work with FAA for mishap planning and all of that kind of stuff. Not too intense—again, each of the partners is responsible for licensing their system, and only if there are questions that FAA needs from us, we work with them. But they manage it pretty well. I think we have a really good working relationship with the FAA as well. George [C. Nield, FAA Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation] has got a good bunch over there.

[Assistant] It seems to be very interested and in-tune with what NASA’s doing with this whole program.


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] Yes, that’s correct. That continues to this day, and we have a really good working relationship with the safety office [Office of Safety and Mission Assurance] here.

[Assistant] Do you have a role working with the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] as they work with your COTS partners?

[User] We brought FAA in early as well, as one of the members of the team, knowing that they [the commercial partners] were going to be FAA-licensed. We worked with them initially to establish the processes and roles, not on a day-to-day basis for the cargo operations. Again, once they’re successful the operations are managed by ISS. They work with FAA for the missions going to ISS.\n\n For demonstrations we work with FAA for mishap planning and all of that kind of stuff. Not too intense—again, each of the partners is responsible for licensing their system, and only if there are questions that FAA needs from us, we work with them. But they manage it pretty well. I think we have a really good working relationship with the FAA as well. George [C. Nield, FAA Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation] has got a good bunch over there.

[Assistant] It seems to be very interested and in-tune with what NASA’s doing with this whole program.

[User] Yes, and they’re working with us on new stuff as well, really well. Those relationships are working out really nicely.

[Assistant] That’s good. It makes you feel like it’s less of a burden when you get that communication down. Lots of good stuff has come out of the COTS program, but at the beginning, there was a kind of a hiccup when Doc Horowitz had to terminate one of the partners. Can you share?


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] We didn’t see any benefit in that. It didn’t look like that would be a benefit.

[Assistant] Was that a benefit for that partner? Or just as a whole in the program that if you had to terminate somebody, that was their work?

[User] No, as part of the program we actually have rights to their intellectual property should they miss a milestone or should they fail and we have to cancel the Space Act Agreement. We actually do at that point get rights to the IP, and can actually decide whether or not we want to take ownership of that and continue or not. For the COTS program, we waived our rights to any intellectual property unless they failed in developing the system. Or there was a timeframe, I think 2015, where we could have rights to it. Those are the only two cases where we can get rights to their intellectual property.

[Assistant] You missed out on Round 1. Were you involved in the Round 2 selection process?

[User] Again, part of it. At that time Constellation was ramping up, so I was asked to do the program executive job on that as well. I actually picked up on the Ares I and the Ares V [rockets]. That was just about the intense time when things were really picking up on Ares I and Ares V, so I moved over there for a little while. Alan knew how to run those, and it was pretty straightforward. Again, I didn’t come back until right at selection. Then I did the COTS and the Constellation work all at the same time. It was fun.

[Assistant] Goodness. That must’ve been an interesting time period for you though, when Constellation was being cancelled and the COTS piece took on a more commanding role.


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] No, as part of the program we actually have rights to their intellectual property should they miss a milestone or should they fail and we have to cancel the Space Act Agreement. We actually do at that point get rights to the IP, and can actually decide whether or not we want to take ownership of that and continue or not. For the COTS program, we waived our rights to any intellectual property unless they failed in developing the system. Or there was a timeframe, I think 2015, where we could have rights to it. Those are the only two cases where we can get rights to their intellectual property.

[Assistant] You missed out on Round 1. Were you involved in the Round 2 selection process?

[User] Again, part of it. At that time Constellation was ramping up, so I was asked to do the program executive job on that as well. I actually picked up on the Ares I and the Ares V [rockets]. That was just about the intense time when things were really picking up on Ares I and Ares V, so I moved over there for a little while. Alan knew how to run those, and it was pretty straightforward. Again, I didn’t come back until right at selection. Then I did the COTS and the Constellation work all at the same time. It was fun.

[Assistant] Goodness. That must’ve been an interesting time period for you though, when Constellation was being cancelled and the COTS piece took on a more commanding role.

[User] It was also very interesting to see the differences in culture with two programs within NASA. It was kind of interesting to actually watch and live the culture differences as both programs progressed. It was the most dramatic thing I’ve seen in awhile.

[Assistant] Since you made that statement, it makes me want to ask about your thoughts of how you see this new culture being applied in future NASA programs, or do you?


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] Again, part of it. At that time Constellation was ramping up, so I was asked to do the program executive job on that as well. I actually picked up on the Ares I and the Ares V [rockets]. That was just about the intense time when things were really picking up on Ares I and Ares V, so I moved over there for a little while. Alan knew how to run those, and it was pretty straightforward. Again, I didn’t come back until right at selection. Then I did the COTS and the Constellation work all at the same time. It was fun.

[Assistant] Goodness. That must’ve been an interesting time period for you though, when Constellation was being cancelled and the COTS piece took on a more commanding role.

[User] It was also very interesting to see the differences in culture with two programs within NASA. It was kind of interesting to actually watch and live the culture differences as both programs progressed. It was the most dramatic thing I’ve seen in awhile.

[Assistant] Since you made that statement, it makes me want to ask about your thoughts of how you see this new culture being applied in future NASA programs, or do you?

[User] I think it could make sense to use a partnership where there’s a potential future use for NASA, as well as a really definable commercial use that could sustain itself without any NASA work. In those instances where a future NASA capability could help drive a new industry, that could be a potential for a partnership. Not dual use, but where there’s a real, definable market that is totally not NASA’s. That’s one thing we did on COTS. We wanted to make sure we were stimulating commercial launch capabilities that could be globally competitive.

[Assistant] Do you see other markets that will come from the COTS partnership that will work towards expanding the markets for these partners, and the ones that possibly didn’t win?


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] It was also very interesting to see the differences in culture with two programs within NASA. It was kind of interesting to actually watch and live the culture differences as both programs progressed. It was the most dramatic thing I’ve seen in awhile.

[Assistant] Since you made that statement, it makes me want to ask about your thoughts of how you see this new culture being applied in future NASA programs, or do you?

[User] I think it could make sense to use a partnership where there’s a potential future use for NASA, as well as a really definable commercial use that could sustain itself without any NASA work. In those instances where a future NASA capability could help drive a new industry, that could be a potential for a partnership. Not dual use, but where there’s a real, definable market that is totally not NASA’s. That’s one thing we did on COTS. We wanted to make sure we were stimulating commercial launch capabilities that could be globally competitive.

[Assistant] Do you see other markets that will come from the COTS partnership that will work towards expanding the markets for these partners, and the ones that possibly didn’t win?

[User] From the COTS perspective, I think having the low-cost launch vehicles can help the satellite industry as well as the launch vehicle industry. As we’ve had the ITAR [International Traffic in Arms Regulations] issues over the past, we’ve been losing market share on satellite manufacturing because we did not have a cost-effective way to launch satellites. Satellite production was tending to move offshore.\n\n The fact that we have cost-effective launch now within the United States—or we’re getting close to it—you’re seeing satellite companies grab new customers that we might not have been able to grab. You can launch them on launch vehicles in the United States that are actually cheaper than other places. I think we have the potential for—and I can’t really quantify it—helping out the United States satellite manufacturing industry as well.

[Assistant] That may be something that has started here that could possibly evolve. Is that what you’re thinking of in the future?


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] I think it could make sense to use a partnership where there’s a potential future use for NASA, as well as a really definable commercial use that could sustain itself without any NASA work. In those instances where a future NASA capability could help drive a new industry, that could be a potential for a partnership. Not dual use, but where there’s a real, definable market that is totally not NASA’s. That’s one thing we did on COTS. We wanted to make sure we were stimulating commercial launch capabilities that could be globally competitive.

[Assistant] Do you see other markets that will come from the COTS partnership that will work towards expanding the markets for these partners, and the ones that possibly didn’t win?

[User] From the COTS perspective, I think having the low-cost launch vehicles can help the satellite industry as well as the launch vehicle industry. As we’ve had the ITAR [International Traffic in Arms Regulations] issues over the past, we’ve been losing market share on satellite manufacturing because we did not have a cost-effective way to launch satellites. Satellite production was tending to move offshore.\n\n The fact that we have cost-effective launch now within the United States—or we’re getting close to it—you’re seeing satellite companies grab new customers that we might not have been able to grab. You can launch them on launch vehicles in the United States that are actually cheaper than other places. I think we have the potential for—and I can’t really quantify it—helping out the United States satellite manufacturing industry as well.

[Assistant] That may be something that has started here that could possibly evolve. Is that what you’re thinking of in the future?

[User] No, just the fact that we’ve helped enable cost-effective launches helps the satellite manufacturers build satellites that can be launched on United States vehicles, and not have any ITAR issues with shipping, with trying to launch satellites on Russian, or Chinese, or any other launch vehicles.

[Assistant] Looking back on your involvement with the COTS program, what are the lessons you feel that NASA has learned from this, and also in your job as program executive? What have you gained?


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] I think they were successful in part because they didn’t have any money. There wasn’t funding to allow a bunch of people to help them out. They also were not seen as viable, so we didn’t see a lot of NASA people wanting to help out and help us with the current culture. I think they benefited from both sides of that. I think that’s the biggest thing that I saw. Alan Marty, the venture capitalist who we brought in, told us how to put the program together and how to build that culture up so that it could be successful.

[Assistant] So you feel like he was a very vital part.

[User] Yes, he was really good. He actually handed out copies of a book for all of us to read [The Innovator’s Dilemma by Clayton M. Christensen]. It was good. The book actually described how culture kills companies, and how to set your program up so culture won’t kill it.

[Assistant] That’s very interesting. Those lessons that you learned, are you able to apply them in other parts of what you’re doing for NASA?

[User] Sure, yes. At home, with my wife, and here at work. It’s really useful and we’ve been very successful.

[Assistant] Give me some examples. You mentioned how you were able to share the elements of this culture that needed to be perpetuated, but were understandable for those who weren’t accustomed to what you were doing down there.


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] At the technical level, at the working level, it was really easy. The COTS guys were focused on the partner development and demonstration, and ISS was focused on visiting vehicle verification. Since ISS really understood visiting vehicle verification, they understood what kinds of things they needed to allow them to accomplish that verification and safety certification before going to ISS. Alan Lindenmoyer and Kathy [Kathryn L.] Lueders worked together to make sure that they had a really good, fantastic, seamless team that could transition as needed. We also had shared quarterlies. It was as combined as we could, with everybody understanding who had what roles and responsibilities. That seemed to work really well.

[Assistant] More of a team effort?

[User] Yes, and I have to give credit to Alan and Kathy on that. The combination of the two really pulled this off, really made it successful. I don’t know if you could’ve put anybody else other than Alan and Kathy in those positions and had it be successful.

[Assistant] Have you had much interaction with the partners themselves, or is your interaction mostly with the NASA personnel?

[User] Yes, I interact with the partners quite a bit. It tends to be more at the higher level than at the working troop level. Although I did used to get emails at two in the morning, “Give me a call when you get in.” It’s, again, that communication flow, and that communication flow goes all the way up and down through everybody. We try for everybody on the team to know everything they can, so that nothing pops up and there are no surprises. That’s easy with a team of four or five or six. It’s hard with a team of thousands.

[Assistant] Sure. More shared information rather than trickle down. Where is your role now, and how is your role going to change as the program office starts moving towards closing out?


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] Yes, and I have to give credit to Alan and Kathy on that. The combination of the two really pulled this off, really made it successful. I don’t know if you could’ve put anybody else other than Alan and Kathy in those positions and had it be successful.

[Assistant] Have you had much interaction with the partners themselves, or is your interaction mostly with the NASA personnel?

[User] Yes, I interact with the partners quite a bit. It tends to be more at the higher level than at the working troop level. Although I did used to get emails at two in the morning, “Give me a call when you get in.” It’s, again, that communication flow, and that communication flow goes all the way up and down through everybody. We try for everybody on the team to know everything they can, so that nothing pops up and there are no surprises. That’s easy with a team of four or five or six. It’s hard with a team of thousands.

[Assistant] Sure. More shared information rather than trickle down. Where is your role now, and how is your role going to change as the program office starts moving towards closing out?

[User] I guess a good way to describe it is with SpaceX. As SpaceX finished their last demonstration mission going to the International Space Station, the next flight was ISS. It was a step function. We no longer worked that. We work closely with the ISS guys up here, because we have the knowledge and help them out as much as they can. The ISS guys sit all around us, so we work with them really closely as well. But it’s an ISS function. Once Orbital finishes their demonstration, it’ll be an ISS function after that. Then we’ll go on and do new things on the cargo side.

[Assistant] So the cargo side is going to continue functioning?


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] Oh yes. If you just take a look at SpaceX—I think they have like 40 or 50 launches on their manifest now. Those would be 40 or 50 launches that would be going to China, or Russia, or India, or Europe. That’s something. I think NASA has 12 flights of that 40, so there’s 30-some-odd flights that would not be flown out of this country if not for what we’ve helped with.

[Assistant] Speaking of launch services, were you involved with the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport operations as well?

[User] Yes. They own the pad out at Wallops [Island, Virginia], and they are the primary launch site for Orbital Sciences. It’s a state of Virginia-owned and -operated launch pad. I think they have some other launch pads out at Wallops as well. This is the largest that they’ve done. It’s been a really fantastic few years watching it all come together, because when they started the pad, it was just sand. Literally. SpaceX flew off Pad 40 [Cape Canaveral, Florida], which has been around for awhile, but this is a brand new pad that started on the sand. To see that come together has been pretty wild as well.

[Assistant] Were you involved in that from an official capacity here?

[User] Not really. Again, it was the state of Virginia’s responsibility to build it. We tracked it and just monitored it. Orbital Sciences was their customer. The Wallops range involvement included range-type functions. At Headquarters we just monitored, kept up with it and tracked any issues, and how things were moving forward. They had some issues, but it’s working good.

[Assistant] You mentioned it was fun. I do want to close out by asking you, what do you consider to be the most challenging aspect of working this new program?


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] Yes. They own the pad out at Wallops [Island, Virginia], and they are the primary launch site for Orbital Sciences. It’s a state of Virginia-owned and -operated launch pad. I think they have some other launch pads out at Wallops as well. This is the largest that they’ve done. It’s been a really fantastic few years watching it all come together, because when they started the pad, it was just sand. Literally. SpaceX flew off Pad 40 [Cape Canaveral, Florida], which has been around for awhile, but this is a brand new pad that started on the sand. To see that come together has been pretty wild as well.

[Assistant] Were you involved in that from an official capacity here?

[User] Not really. Again, it was the state of Virginia’s responsibility to build it. We tracked it and just monitored it. Orbital Sciences was their customer. The Wallops range involvement included range-type functions. At Headquarters we just monitored, kept up with it and tracked any issues, and how things were moving forward. They had some issues, but it’s working good.

[Assistant] You mentioned it was fun. I do want to close out by asking you, what do you consider to be the most challenging aspect of working this new program?

[User] I think the most challenging aspect is managing expectations and managing culture. There’s a huge propensity within the Agency to do things in ways that we know, which is normal for any organization. The Agency has to have the courage to step back and say, “No, let’s take this out of the old way, the current way we do business, and let’s do it a different way.” I think the more we can do that in the future, the more successful we’ll be. The culture will tend to want to kill it, but that takes management from the top down, as well as the bottom up. You have to have the 9th floor [top management] involvement and support all the way down.

[Assistant] Through these years, even though players have changed, the support has continued to be there?


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] Not really. Again, it was the state of Virginia’s responsibility to build it. We tracked it and just monitored it. Orbital Sciences was their customer. The Wallops range involvement included range-type functions. At Headquarters we just monitored, kept up with it and tracked any issues, and how things were moving forward. They had some issues, but it’s working good.

[Assistant] You mentioned it was fun. I do want to close out by asking you, what do you consider to be the most challenging aspect of working this new program?

[User] I think the most challenging aspect is managing expectations and managing culture. There’s a huge propensity within the Agency to do things in ways that we know, which is normal for any organization. The Agency has to have the courage to step back and say, “No, let’s take this out of the old way, the current way we do business, and let’s do it a different way.” I think the more we can do that in the future, the more successful we’ll be. The culture will tend to want to kill it, but that takes management from the top down, as well as the bottom up. You have to have the 9th floor [top management] involvement and support all the way down.

[Assistant] Through these years, even though players have changed, the support has continued to be there?

[User] Yes, we’ve always had tremendous support out of the White House and OSTP [Office of Science and Technology Policy], up through the 9th floor. We’ve always had really fantastic support, and it’s been growing as we’ve been successful. There were tons and tons of doubters within NASA that said this just can’t be done. I’m glad for the country that we’ve proven them wrong. I think it’s good for the country.

[Assistant] We look forward to see what’s coming next. It’ll stay busy, I’m sure.


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] And the same guys on their side, with Arnold probably being the connectivity. Actually, Arnold and Gary Johnson on safety down here. Gary Coen was involved early on, on the operations side. Gary probably went back to the Apollo-Soyuz with them, as well.

[Assistant] Yes, he was one of the originals.

[User] Well, anyway, I got sidetracked there. But that's kind of how it evolved initially.\n\n Then related to that, and parallel almost, we were told in November, about the same time as the addendum to the program implementation plan that Doyle worked on, I think was about the same time the concept of paying for some of this arose. So I was asked to put together a team to negotiate that piece of it, the $400 million. So I'm very familiar with how that evolved. That was largely geared around some of these trying to provide disincentives to the Russians in other areas, as well as recognizing that we were going to get some unique capability and benefits that we should pay a reasonable amount for.\n\n Since it was compared to a Space Lab flight, as it evolved, we were getting a real good deal compared to flying a Space Lab. We were getting to use Mir as a research facility and also have, rather than sixteen days, having people up there for four, six months at a clip.

[Assistant] Would you tell us a little bit about how it was funded and what the money was actually used for?

[User] The money, it was basically kind of a strange negotiation, because we were told what the bottom line was before we went into it, so it was more of a negotiation around what fits in the box.

[Assistant] And they needed a bottom line, too.


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] When that all occurred?

[Assistant] Yes.

[User] Right from the get-go, including when it was informal and ad hoc, Don Puddy was working crew issues -- the crew and crew training issues. Gary Johnson was working the safety aspects. Gary Coen was working operational aspects. Rick Nygren, I think, was involved at that time working some of the science aspects, although Arnold was still very heavily involved from the Headquarters side. I'm trying to think who else was in that initial group. Jim and I.\n\n I was really tied up so much with the contract stuff that I wasn't as much involved in the ongoing meetings and working group meetings and all that kind of thing at that point in time. I'm trying to think who else. Oh, Tommy. Stu Grissom who's still in the area. Stu would probably be an interesting guy to talk to. Stu is kind of Tommy's right-hand person in the early time frame.

[Assistant] Stu worked ASTP.

[User] Stu had worked ASTP. Stu had been around a long time and is a great guy. He'd probably be a good interview for you guys, from his perspective.

[Assistant] I know him. He worked with us on the satellite servicing and rescue.


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] It had a lot of very high moments and a lot of very boring, tedious moments. A lot of contentious moments. The most unusual part of it was probably the letter contract we did up at Headquarters, because both sides were told, "You need to get this done by December 16th," I think was the date, because there was a Gore/Chernomyrdin meeting. So we had basically three weeks to get this thing done. We were up, and Dee Lee who was -I guess she still is now -I guess she was the head of procurement.

[Assistant] She still is.

[User] Okay. Head of procurement up at Headquarters, we were in her kind of personal conference room there and going from eight in the morning until three in the morning every day, weekends. I think the only day we took off was Thanksgiving Day. That was very intense and, actually, in retrospect, was a lot of fun, because that was most freewheeling time. Everybody was very motivated to get something done by that deadline, including the Russian side. I mean, for us, at least we could go home to our homes. I mean, they were living in a hotel in a foreign place. So it was unusual for them and us.\n\n But that was kind of the funnest of the period, because once we got down here we were out in a formerly classified facility that, back when we used to fly military payloads, had been a secure facility. It's literally under the ground, no windows. Not the nicest -they still do special things out there like -

[Assistant] Does it still look like it used to look?

[User] Yes. It would be interesting to see that. Because the Russians, I mean, they went out there and the only bunker they had ever known about was Hitler's, so they didn't really like it being called "the bunker." They didn't like being out there, because it's not the nicest. It's not what you could call posh executive conference. [Laughter]

[Assistant] Ceiling tile table thing.


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] Not really as part of the partnership yet. It will probably evolve, because we've really dealt with it much more bilaterally than we have as a group, with the exception of now with the IGA all being signed. But once we start operating, it will probably evolve. The Japanese, that's a tougher one, because they've got a much different political view than we do, that's just starting to evolve. They had a longstanding, I guess, not feud, but their own little cold war with Russia, that's just starting to evolve.\n\n So hopefully with time that will all benefit everybody. I'd say initially it was probably more the other way, at least from a group perspective. One on one, Europeans are getting a lot out of Mir. I've been involved directly with the Russians before we got this program going, a lot more so than NASA was. Germany and France particularly.

[Assistant] You make a really good point there, saying how it's done bilaterally as opposed to multilaterally.

[User] Right now. Right now, with a few exceptions like with these intergovernmental agreements being signed. But even that, we negotiated that pretty much on a -the piece of that I was involved with Barry Waddell and Melanie and those guys, with the balance of contributions, which basically opened up the door to allow the agreement to be signed. That was done purely bilaterally. That kind of irked the other partners, because we kind of were keeping our cards all to ourselves, and they were kind of keeping them at arm's length for those negotiations, which were also done partly out at the bunker. So they were happy to come back and face the bunker again. [Laughter] Krusnov was like, "I'll come to Houston, but just not the bunker." So eventually got it out of McDonnell-Douglas Building back there, which was a little nicer for them. [Laughter]

[Assistant] It had windows.

[User] It had windows, yes. [Laughter]

[Assistant] It was above ground.


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] Right now. Right now, with a few exceptions like with these intergovernmental agreements being signed. But even that, we negotiated that pretty much on a -the piece of that I was involved with Barry Waddell and Melanie and those guys, with the balance of contributions, which basically opened up the door to allow the agreement to be signed. That was done purely bilaterally. That kind of irked the other partners, because we kind of were keeping our cards all to ourselves, and they were kind of keeping them at arm's length for those negotiations, which were also done partly out at the bunker. So they were happy to come back and face the bunker again. [Laughter] Krusnov was like, "I'll come to Houston, but just not the bunker." So eventually got it out of McDonnell-Douglas Building back there, which was a little nicer for them. [Laughter]

[Assistant] It had windows.

[User] It had windows, yes. [Laughter]

[Assistant] It was above ground.

[User] And it was above ground. [Laughter]

[Assistant] You mentioned a little bit about congressional involvement in this whole program. Can you touch a little bit about what their specific involvement has been?


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] It had windows, yes. [Laughter]

[Assistant] It was above ground.

[User] And it was above ground. [Laughter]

[Assistant] You mentioned a little bit about congressional involvement in this whole program. Can you touch a little bit about what their specific involvement has been?

[User] Not without using some expletives. [Laughter] No, I shouldn't say that. I remember before I even came to NASA, where I was in another agency, the Space Station in particular was very contentious and very dull. I think it was probably more contentious politically than it's been since we brought the Russians in. Well, before the Russians. I think Congress has been a lot more hands-off with us ever since we brought the Russians in, with a few exceptions, Sessenbrenner primarily being the exception, and lately now more with the discussion over whether we've got our priorities straight between human space flight and doing advanced technology, like Rorbacher and some of those folks would like to see us be doing.\n\n But I think the work on particularly the Phase One, actually doing something in space and having a place to go, a port of call, has probably, with the exception of this past summer, has probably helped keep the Shuttle Program, too, off the skyline, because it's been a very visible program, very much tied to the President. From a bipartisan foreign policy point of view, I think it's probably helped politically and congressionally in that way. More in that we haven't been getting a lot of -it helps when you don't have a lot of congressional help with your program. [Laughter]

[Assistant] The best thing you can hope for is the phone doesn't ring. [Laughter]


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] And it was above ground. [Laughter]

[Assistant] You mentioned a little bit about congressional involvement in this whole program. Can you touch a little bit about what their specific involvement has been?

[User] Not without using some expletives. [Laughter] No, I shouldn't say that. I remember before I even came to NASA, where I was in another agency, the Space Station in particular was very contentious and very dull. I think it was probably more contentious politically than it's been since we brought the Russians in. Well, before the Russians. I think Congress has been a lot more hands-off with us ever since we brought the Russians in, with a few exceptions, Sessenbrenner primarily being the exception, and lately now more with the discussion over whether we've got our priorities straight between human space flight and doing advanced technology, like Rorbacher and some of those folks would like to see us be doing.\n\n But I think the work on particularly the Phase One, actually doing something in space and having a place to go, a port of call, has probably, with the exception of this past summer, has probably helped keep the Shuttle Program, too, off the skyline, because it's been a very visible program, very much tied to the President. From a bipartisan foreign policy point of view, I think it's probably helped politically and congressionally in that way. More in that we haven't been getting a lot of -it helps when you don't have a lot of congressional help with your program. [Laughter]

[Assistant] The best thing you can hope for is the phone doesn't ring. [Laughter]

[User] Frank did a phenomenal job this summer, and Mike from orbit, and then once he came home, of selling and keeping and getting it back on track. Keeping it in perspective, and making that interest kind of peak back off, where now it hasn't been in the papers since -unfortunately. I think it could have a lot more positive attention on it, other than when the air-conditioning system breaks down. But that's the nature -

[Assistant] Or the [project] goes down. That's all you ever hear.


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] And what better place to start than with the Russians, getting those two programs together. Then the European contribution and the Japanese and whoever else wants to join. It's a lot more meaningful if you've got a real catalyst moving forward, which our two programs is.

[Assistant] To me, that's the three major themes that are coming out of the way you look at it. Then all the engineering and the technical piece, that's all supporting data that supports that. But they support those three themes.\n\n If I were looking at a closure point, it would be the transfer of this knowledge to Space Station, as well as making the public aware of it. But I mean, to transfer this knowledge somewhere, both on the operational side and into the public where everybody understands it.

[User] And beyond.

[Assistant] And beyond, but that's the next step.

[User] That's the next step.

[Assistant] That's the concluding chapter, is we didn't just go do this; we took full advantage of it, both inside the agency and as a way of dealing with our former enemies. Less is bigger than just the Space Station.


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] And beyond.

[Assistant] And beyond, but that's the next step.

[User] That's the next step.

[Assistant] That's the concluding chapter, is we didn't just go do this; we took full advantage of it, both inside the agency and as a way of dealing with our former enemies. Less is bigger than just the Space Station.

[User] Absolutely. That makes it more exciting, I think, too, for kids, if they saw it that way.

[Assistant] I mean, again, it's not just space.


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] That's the next step.

[Assistant] That's the concluding chapter, is we didn't just go do this; we took full advantage of it, both inside the agency and as a way of dealing with our former enemies. Less is bigger than just the Space Station.

[User] Absolutely. That makes it more exciting, I think, too, for kids, if they saw it that way.

[Assistant] I mean, again, it's not just space.

[User] Yes, it's connected to everything. It's connected to everything we're doing in terms of technology development, into the type of country we're able -and we're not living -we don't have air raid drills anymore where you go under your desk. I mean, there is a future now. There is a future and this is a key piece of it.

[Assistant] Like every day wondering whether your kids are going to get nuked.


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] Yes, it's connected to everything. It's connected to everything we're doing in terms of technology development, into the type of country we're able -and we're not living -we don't have air raid drills anymore where you go under your desk. I mean, there is a future now. There is a future and this is a key piece of it.

[Assistant] Like every day wondering whether your kids are going to get nuked.

[User] Get nuked or whatever.

[Assistant] Absolutely.

[User] For the minimal paltry amount that -for that kind of future to be opened up to people.

[Assistant] We aren't selling things to Saddam Hussein.


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] For the minimal paltry amount that -for that kind of future to be opened up to people.

[Assistant] We aren't selling things to Saddam Hussein.

[User] Yes, I think that part is kind of the neat part. Bush should get some credit for it and Clinton should get a lot of credit for it, because they both saw it. I think Reagan even saw it, but he got -this may even go back a little bit to Reagan. I'm trying to remember. But he did that whole thing with Reykjavik, with trying to do SDI "Let's all get rid of our missiles" thing. I'm pretty sure NASA looked at it in maybe like, '84 or so, or maybe it was even earlier. There was the Afghanistan invasion in like '79 that killed some things that were growing in this direction. Then there was the Nicholson thing, him getting shot and killed in East Germany, I guess. I forget what year that was.\n\n But now we're at such a point, I mean, you don't even -little minor things -minor? Big things, like our current situation in Iraq, you don't see anybody threatening to pull the plug on this right now. You know what I mean?

[Assistant] Right.

[User] It's kind of gotten to a point where it's got his own life force. It's not purely a political program anymore. Or maybe it's so much of a political program in terms of our relationship, that it would be hard to pull. I don't know which one it is, the chicken or the egg.

[Assistant] A lot of it, I think, is that people don't look at it as highly political, so it doesn't get radar screened.


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] Yes, I think that part is kind of the neat part. Bush should get some credit for it and Clinton should get a lot of credit for it, because they both saw it. I think Reagan even saw it, but he got -this may even go back a little bit to Reagan. I'm trying to remember. But he did that whole thing with Reykjavik, with trying to do SDI "Let's all get rid of our missiles" thing. I'm pretty sure NASA looked at it in maybe like, '84 or so, or maybe it was even earlier. There was the Afghanistan invasion in like '79 that killed some things that were growing in this direction. Then there was the Nicholson thing, him getting shot and killed in East Germany, I guess. I forget what year that was.\n\n But now we're at such a point, I mean, you don't even -little minor things -minor? Big things, like our current situation in Iraq, you don't see anybody threatening to pull the plug on this right now. You know what I mean?

[Assistant] Right.

[User] It's kind of gotten to a point where it's got his own life force. It's not purely a political program anymore. Or maybe it's so much of a political program in terms of our relationship, that it would be hard to pull. I don't know which one it is, the chicken or the egg.

[Assistant] A lot of it, I think, is that people don't look at it as highly political, so it doesn't get radar screened.

[User] Because we're operating. It's down here, it's being done with -

[Assistant] Just operating, we're doing work. They're not talking about closing their borders either.


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] Because we're operating. It's down here, it's being done with -

[Assistant] Just operating, we're doing work. They're not talking about closing their borders either.

[User] I think if you talk, if you guys get some time, Mike [Foale] -I keep saying Mike, because I think he would be a great one to talk to. But from a Lewis and Clark, or Lewis and Ivan, perspective of being on the frontier, and Dave Wolf's letters. I don't know if you guys got a hold of those, those letters.

[Assistant] Yes.

[User] I mean, those are great at showing kind of that you learn by being out on the frontier, and what it's like being on the frontier. And that is the new frontier. I mean, that's NASA explores the space frontier, for kids and all. I think to those that aren't just, got their slide rulers out, and are interested in it from a -you know, the pocket protector crowd that are interested in it, too, from an excitement standpoint. Dave's letter were phenomenal in that way. Yes, but I think you hit it on the head, Bill.

[Assistant] That's great. Do you have anything else you want to add, or some other relative points?


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] Me personally?

[Assistant] Yes. Or anything you’ve worked on that you feel like made the biggest impact.

[User] There’s not one that sticks out. There’s just been a slew of incremental changes. That’s all part of daily life of getting the job done. I influenced certain changes that created additional burdens in terms of getting done, but I viewed as increasing the reliability and safety of the spacecraft. Were those necessary to have a successful EFT-1? Nobody really knows. It was successful. Would it have not been successful if those certain changes would not have been made? Nobody knows the answer to that. So I don’t know that I can say—no one particular contribution sticks out for me personally. I try and take every day a day at a time, and for the issues that come up on a given day try and make the best decisions, do what I can to help the team make the best decisions possible.

[Assistant] Mark Geyer has been quoted as saying, “The Orion Program learned to persevere.” Is that something you would agree with?

[User] Absolutely. The comment that I made earlier about if Mark personally would not have been in that role, we may not be here having this conversation today, and there may have never been an EFT-1 or a PA-1. I think a less skillful project manager may have not been able to lead us through that turmoil and come out on the other end in a successful way. Yes, we’ve gone through a lot, and have adapted and lived through it.

[Assistant] Is there anything we haven’t talked about that you’d like to mention before we stop?


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] There’s not one that sticks out. There’s just been a slew of incremental changes. That’s all part of daily life of getting the job done. I influenced certain changes that created additional burdens in terms of getting done, but I viewed as increasing the reliability and safety of the spacecraft. Were those necessary to have a successful EFT-1? Nobody really knows. It was successful. Would it have not been successful if those certain changes would not have been made? Nobody knows the answer to that. So I don’t know that I can say—no one particular contribution sticks out for me personally. I try and take every day a day at a time, and for the issues that come up on a given day try and make the best decisions, do what I can to help the team make the best decisions possible.

[Assistant] Mark Geyer has been quoted as saying, “The Orion Program learned to persevere.” Is that something you would agree with?

[User] Absolutely. The comment that I made earlier about if Mark personally would not have been in that role, we may not be here having this conversation today, and there may have never been an EFT-1 or a PA-1. I think a less skillful project manager may have not been able to lead us through that turmoil and come out on the other end in a successful way. Yes, we’ve gone through a lot, and have adapted and lived through it.

[Assistant] Is there anything we haven’t talked about that you’d like to mention before we stop?

[User] No, I don’t think so. We covered a lot of ground, so nothing immediately comes to mind. I would probably think of something after you leave.

[Assistant] That’s fine, and you can add it later. We thank you for doing this today.


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] Yes. Yes, yes.

[Assistant] And what were your thoughts on that?

[User] Well, again, it was one of these do we or don’t we? Do we or don’t we? They said, “There’s a small fire out there on the pad.” The gantry or the access arm had been swung back to the side hatch. I don’t know that we argued about it. I know there was some discussion like, “Should we run out and get in those baskets and get out of here?” And I don’t know why—I don’t think we ever queried LCC as to whether we should do that or not. It was an internal debate. Maybe one of the other crew members have some better memory than I do on that. But it was just a discussion in the cockpit whether we do, whether we don’t. And we just kind of decided that we would sit tight and wait for LCC to give the call.

[Assistant] In August, you had a chance to launch again.

[User] Yes.

[Assistant] And you did have a couple of delays as well.


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] The urincicle?

[Assistant] Yes. You were called onto possibly—

[User] Possibly do a spacewalk, yes. Hawley and I—which we were really hoping for. Hawley and I had trained as the backup—what do you call them? The contingency EVA [Extravehicular Activity] crew members, in case there was a problem. There was no planned EVA, but they always have two crew members trained in case there is a problem that requires an EVA. So Hawley and I did a—I guess we prepared to do a spacewalk. I later heard on the ground that the ground really felt that was a real long, long, long shot, that they would ever send out anybody to do a spacewalk to get rid of this thing. They felt like they would be able to do it fine with the robot arm, which they did. But, of course, Hawley and I were praying that they would call us and say, “Go out on a spacewalk and knock this thing off.” But I was really looking forward to that, but it wasn’t to be, didn’t happen. Hank used the robot arm and reached in there and knocked the thing off.

[Assistant] Hank Hartsfield had training on the RMS [remote manipulator system]?

[User] He had used the RMS on his mission, STS-3. He’d used the RMS on his mission, I think, and so he was trained. Judy was trained on it, too. I don’t remember the logic process by which Hank used the arm and Judy didn’t. I don’t remember what the rationale was there, but I remember Hank used it to knock off that urine. So we’d better hope that any aliens that are in orbit go by the old Boy Scout adage, “Don’t eat yellow snow.” [Wright laughs.] Because there was going to be a blob of it floating around up there.

[Assistant] Our research has told us that during this situation that you guys became very resourceful of having to handle all of the lack of sanitary efforts up there. You ended up using some of your used clothing to help—


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] Every opportunity. I sat there at every opportunity taking pictures, taking photos, just clicking away at anything and everything that looked interesting, bringing them back. On a low-inclination orbit like that, you don’t really—a lot of it’s ocean. The world’s a big ocean, but still, we got some great photos.

[Assistant] The mission ended. You landed at Edwards.

[User] Edwards. All three of my missions landed at Edwards. Yes, it was—

[Assistant] Was that kind of a homecoming? You were back to where you’d spent some time there?

[User] No, not really. Oh, I spent some time there, but it wasn’t—I never considered Edwards a real part of home, I guess. It was fun to land there. Yes, reentry and landing were pretty straightforward. I remember the G-forces seemed to me to be very high on reentry, even though they were under 2, 1.8 or something, but because you’d been weightless, you feel like you have an elephant on your back on reentry.\n\n Watching the glow of reentry out the windows was a kick. Entry is not very scary. I mean, you do have some thoughts in your mind, “Well, I hope this thing holds together, and I hope these engineers knew what they were doing,” but it’s not like launch. Launch is terrifying, but entry is fairly relaxing.

[Assistant] When you returned—


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] Right.

[Assistant] How did it compare using it in space as you trained in the simulator?

[User] Very similar. I felt that I was well prepared through the simulation: The simulations were very good. I didn’t really find anything that surprised me in the use of it. Just was very careful. Didn’t want to bang anything. I felt really, really good about it. Well prepared. The simulations were perfect.

[Assistant] Before your last mission launched, you announced that you were going to be retiring.

[User] Right.

[Assistant] What led to that decision, and specifically why at that time, from the Air Force and from NASA?


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] The DoD missions I feel very proud about. Even though I can’t talk about them, I feel very, very proud about those DoD missions. I felt like that was something that had a significant impact on America’s security, and I was part of it, and I felt really, really good about those two missions.

[Assistant] Before we close today, I was going to ask Sandra if she had some other questions for you that she might like to ask.

[User] Sure.

[Assistant] Going back to 41B when you were training for the satellite deploys, did you go to the vendors where the satellites were actually created, and if so, do you feel that that helped you understand what you were going to be doing on that mission?

[User] Oh yes. Yes. Yes, we did go to the vendors, both the people who made the propulsion module as well as the satellite on top of it, and that absolutely helped, to see the hardware, real hardware, talk to the engineers about various aspects of the deployment sequence, things to watch for. It was absolutely necessary and very beneficial.\n\n When I look back on all three of my missions, the only surprise I had on all three of my missions was that SRB separation, the quiet that occurred after that, smoothness of flight. Either nobody ever commented about it, or it wasn’t significant to other people, but that was the only thing I remember thinking, “What is this? What’s going on?” All the rest of them, I felt like whatever I was doing, I had done a thousand times before, because I had done it a thousand—well, probably two thousand times I had done it. It was very well done. NASA’s training is superb. Hey, any training program that puts a camera in the bottom of the toilet trainer is a great training program, let me tell you. You’ve heard that story, I’m sure.

[Assistant] Share it with us.


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] I didn't.

[Assistant] Like that.

[User] I didn't have a preference. I just, well, where in the world, you know, I didn't have any particular interest. I thought they would send me to a Spanish speaking country was my thought, because I had known Spanish from high school, but I wasn't a native speaker. So maybe that's why. I don't know. I don't know how they pick their people. I have feeling it's just, I don't know how those decisions were made.

[Assistant] Wherever they needed someone.

[User] Yeah, I think so, what was coming up and you had this background. I don't you know, I don't know how it was. It was really gearing up, though, to be quite an active program then. Yeah. So I was accepted and was delighted. Oh, how fascinating. I've got to read more about that.

[Assistant] So now you had already gone off to school in another country, so your parents were supportive?


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] I didn't have a preference. I just, well, where in the world, you know, I didn't have any particular interest. I thought they would send me to a Spanish speaking country was my thought, because I had known Spanish from high school, but I wasn't a native speaker. So maybe that's why. I don't know. I don't know how they pick their people. I have feeling it's just, I don't know how those decisions were made.

[Assistant] Wherever they needed someone.

[User] Yeah, I think so, what was coming up and you had this background. I don't you know, I don't know how it was. It was really gearing up, though, to be quite an active program then. Yeah. So I was accepted and was delighted. Oh, how fascinating. I've got to read more about that.

[Assistant] So now you had already gone off to school in another country, so your parents were supportive?

[User] Very, yeah.

[Assistant] And how did they feel about you joining Peace Corps?


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] Yeah, I think so, what was coming up and you had this background. I don't you know, I don't know how it was. It was really gearing up, though, to be quite an active program then. Yeah. So I was accepted and was delighted. Oh, how fascinating. I've got to read more about that.

[Assistant] So now you had already gone off to school in another country, so your parents were supportive?

[User] Very, yeah.

[Assistant] And how did they feel about you joining Peace Corps?

[User] Fine. They were very supportive. Yeah. Yeah. My parents were very eager to get me to experience life, go out. And it's a wonderful world out there, you know, go out there and explore it. So they were very supportive.

[Assistant] And maybe unusual for the.


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] Very, yeah.

[Assistant] And how did they feel about you joining Peace Corps?

[User] Fine. They were very supportive. Yeah. Yeah. My parents were very eager to get me to experience life, go out. And it's a wonderful world out there, you know, go out there and explore it. So they were very supportive.

[Assistant] And maybe unusual for the.

[User] For the time.

[Assistant] In the sixties.


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] Fine. They were very supportive. Yeah. Yeah. My parents were very eager to get me to experience life, go out. And it's a wonderful world out there, you know, go out there and explore it. So they were very supportive.

[Assistant] And maybe unusual for the.

[User] For the time.

[Assistant] In the sixties.

[User] Yeah, maybe. I don't know. They were, as I said, they could have, all they could afford was one year away to college. So make the most of it. And I just decided to go down there and so.

[Assistant] Do you think your experience of living in Mexico maybe made you more, more likely to join the Peace Corps since you had?


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] For the time.

[Assistant] In the sixties.

[User] Yeah, maybe. I don't know. They were, as I said, they could have, all they could afford was one year away to college. So make the most of it. And I just decided to go down there and so.

[Assistant] Do you think your experience of living in Mexico maybe made you more, more likely to join the Peace Corps since you had?

[User] Well, I think it yeah, I think it probably helped. It wasn't so scary, you know. I think so. I think that helped. But I did though, I didn't at first. I did not want to go out by myself in a rural area. I knew that I didn't. I don't think so. I think I want to be around some other people, but so that was part of my early decision. They assigned me to Tehran for about six months so.

[Assistant] So how long did that process take from application to?


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] Yeah, maybe. I don't know. They were, as I said, they could have, all they could afford was one year away to college. So make the most of it. And I just decided to go down there and so.

[Assistant] Do you think your experience of living in Mexico maybe made you more, more likely to join the Peace Corps since you had?

[User] Well, I think it yeah, I think it probably helped. It wasn't so scary, you know. I think so. I think that helped. But I did though, I didn't at first. I did not want to go out by myself in a rural area. I knew that I didn't. I don't think so. I think I want to be around some other people, but so that was part of my early decision. They assigned me to Tehran for about six months so.

[Assistant] So how long did that process take from application to?

[User] I don't remember. I think it was in the spring. I think.

[Assistant] But did it go pretty smoothly?


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] Well, I think it yeah, I think it probably helped. It wasn't so scary, you know. I think so. I think that helped. But I did though, I didn't at first. I did not want to go out by myself in a rural area. I knew that I didn't. I don't think so. I think I want to be around some other people, but so that was part of my early decision. They assigned me to Tehran for about six months so.

[Assistant] So how long did that process take from application to?

[User] I don't remember. I think it was in the spring. I think.

[Assistant] But did it go pretty smoothly?

[User] Yeah.

[Assistant] No hiccups or anything?


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] I don't remember. I think it was in the spring. I think.

[Assistant] But did it go pretty smoothly?

[User] Yeah.

[Assistant] No hiccups or anything?

[User] No. Yeah. It went very, you know, they had to interview. They'd send the FBI out to everybody and interview your neighbors.

[Assistant] And background checks.


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] Yeah.

[Assistant] No hiccups or anything?

[User] No. Yeah. It went very, you know, they had to interview. They'd send the FBI out to everybody and interview your neighbors.

[Assistant] And background checks.

[User] Background checks. I mean, that was something I did. So, yeah, I don't, it went just fine so far as I know. Yeah.

[Assistant] Okay. And so then you were accepted.


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] No. Yeah. It went very, you know, they had to interview. They'd send the FBI out to everybody and interview your neighbors.

[Assistant] And background checks.

[User] Background checks. I mean, that was something I did. So, yeah, I don't, it went just fine so far as I know. Yeah.

[Assistant] Okay. And so then you were accepted.

[User] Mm hmm.

[Assistant] And where did you do your training?


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] Background checks. I mean, that was something I did. So, yeah, I don't, it went just fine so far as I know. Yeah.

[Assistant] Okay. And so then you were accepted.

[User] Mm hmm.

[Assistant] And where did you do your training?

[User] At University of Michigan in their English language institute there.

[Assistant] So they weren't doing training in country then?


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] At University of Michigan in their English language institute there.

[Assistant] So they weren't doing training in country then?

[User] No, this is, no, uh uh. We were there for three months and had, um, I don't know, what was it, 4 hours a day of Farsi, I think. And, you know, obviously get the history of Iran or U.S. relations in, and the history of Iran actually. Briefly, it goes on for so long. You know, we just got the overview of the different age, you know, the different eras and the different periods there. But, uh, and some of the politics, we got that. That's where I learned, we learned there about the, um, the CIA's overtaking of the, you know, that caused the coup of the democratically elected Mossadegh.

[Assistant] Yeah.

[User] In '53. And that hadn't been publicly revealed too much. But we, researchers knew it and we were to be informed of that so that, for us to, you know, be aware of it, if it might come up during our training, I mean, during our Peace Corps experience so.

[Assistant] Now this was the fourth group to go to Iran.


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] No, this is, no, uh uh. We were there for three months and had, um, I don't know, what was it, 4 hours a day of Farsi, I think. And, you know, obviously get the history of Iran or U.S. relations in, and the history of Iran actually. Briefly, it goes on for so long. You know, we just got the overview of the different age, you know, the different eras and the different periods there. But, uh, and some of the politics, we got that. That's where I learned, we learned there about the, um, the CIA's overtaking of the, you know, that caused the coup of the democratically elected Mossadegh.

[Assistant] Yeah.

[User] In '53. And that hadn't been publicly revealed too much. But we, researchers knew it and we were to be informed of that so that, for us to, you know, be aware of it, if it might come up during our training, I mean, during our Peace Corps experience so.

[Assistant] Now this was the fourth group to go to Iran.

[User] Mm hmm.

[Assistant] Were most of them teachers?


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] In '53. And that hadn't been publicly revealed too much. But we, researchers knew it and we were to be informed of that so that, for us to, you know, be aware of it, if it might come up during our training, I mean, during our Peace Corps experience so.

[Assistant] Now this was the fourth group to go to Iran.

[User] Mm hmm.

[Assistant] Were most of them teachers?

[User] Yes, we were all TEFL.

[Assistant] And how many people were in your group?


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] Yeah, it was a good size. There was another group just, we, just started a week or two later and they were in, what do they call it? Community development. They were, they were men, all men, in Logan, Utah. So we go by, you're group four or group five, you know, and it's just. They were just, or they arrived three weeks later, something like that. You know, it was kind of confusing. I get this. I guess at that point, Peace Corps didn't quite know how to number groups or how to discern one from the other. And later on they stopped numbering them all together. I guess it just.

[Assistant] [inaudible]

[User] Yeah, yeah. Because we related to our group.

[Assistant] Yeah.

[User] But I mean there are some later ones, they said we didn't have any numbers so, so we've now made our own numbers so we can separate.

[Assistant] So you could keep track.


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] But I mean there are some later ones, they said we didn't have any numbers so, so we've now made our own numbers so we can separate.

[Assistant] So you could keep track.

[User] Keep track of them now that we know because, you know, Iran. Peace Corps was only in Iran for 14 years. So it's, uh, you know, it's a good study, I think, for researchers.

[Assistant] Yeah.

[User] Yeah, for that, for that time period. Yeah.

[Assistant] So you had language training, culture training, and history. Did they, did they bring people from Iran to, to help teach, native speakers?


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] Yes, they were students. We, in fact I keep up with them. We keep, they're very active. Yeah. They were the, the way they taught Farsi from that institute, that English language institute there in Michigan, they used what they call the aural-oral method of teaching a second language. And so we learned Farsi that way. And we also were, that was the way we were taught how do you teach English as a second language. So it worked both ways. One for us to learn how to learn a second language, and then in turn we were taught how to teach English as a second language. And they used, I guess it's a linguistic term, I don't know. But they use, they're called informants. When you have a native speaker of a language who helps you in your, you know, in your spoken, you know, your accent and how you speak and you hear it. But they were called informants.

[Assistant] Okay.

[User] And they were all native speakers of Farsi. They were students from Iran who were coming here to go to college typically. And, uh, then we had a linguist who would show up in class. I don't know how often, but periodically to give you. They taught us how the language was structured and gave us the clues about how you do it. The native speakers didn't necessarily know that, you know, formally. So the linguist gave us the structure of the language and then they would, then the informants would grill us or drill us that day on lesson, how what we were supposed to learn.

[Assistant] Okay.

[User] And we had another one where, yeah, taught us, um, Iranian, the history of Iran. I don't know if he was a professor here or he just became one. I'm not sure. But he was. He wasn't an informant, as they say. He was one of our academic teachers. Yeah.

[Assistant] So as you were going through this training, did you get more and more excited about going to Iran?


[System] Act as an information elicitation agent for oral history.

[User] And we had another one where, yeah, taught us, um, Iranian, the history of Iran. I don't know if he was a professor here or he just became one. I'm not sure. But he was. He wasn't an informant, as they say. He was one of our academic teachers. Yeah.

[Assistant] So as you were going through this training, did you get more and more excited about going to Iran?

[User] Oh, yeah, yeah.

[Assistant] No reservations?

[User] No. No. Yeah, it was a wonderful experience.

[Assistant] So when training was over, you were ready to go?