Reviewed from an ARC; compared with final copy and have removed comments that have been corrected.
Siegel offers a look into the process used to identify and train early male astronauts in the U.S. space program and expands on the unsuccessful attempt to integrate women into it at that time. She alternates the narrative to focus on the white male astronauts then on the potential white women pilots who dreamed of going up in space, highlighting the differences in treatment, exceptions, standards of the time, and the uncertainty of how to get out in outer space and its effects on the human body, given its limitations. The book wraps up with what the future held for the astronauts and the potential astronaut candidates.
Siegel does an excellent job of including anecdotes about each person featured in the narrative, often including quotes from the person in order to give the reader a taste of their personality. Here is the but... While it offers some enlightenment into a time in American History that offered moments of glory, the commentary is, at times, a bit heavy handed on the sexist way that women were objectified by society at the time and often stifled in their attempt for equal opportunity (ex. p. 281, a "measly 3%"). Her lack of objectivity in comments made throughout the text regarding this sexual typecast never lets the reader come to a conclusion on their own. Another quibble: by breaking up the text into chapters that relate the history and experiences of 21 individuals over 25 years (7 astronauts and 14 women who aspired to be astronauts) in under 400 pages, Siegel often feels the need to repeat details to refresh the reader. Examples include explaining Alan Shepard's path to become an astronaut (twice), Shepard's carousing behavior (at least three or four times), informing that Janey Hart's husband was a politician and that she was a mother of eight (two times), commenting that Jerri Sloan was attractive and a pilot looking on growing her career (at least twice), a discussion that women might make better astronauts than men (twice within six pages).
It is very problematic for middle grade readers that the author includes details such as Shepard's juvenile action when he "flipped the jet the middle finger" (p.60), the types of scandalous behaviors Shepard exhibited (fast cars, fast women) and were detailed in chapter 14, and Shepard's inappropriate comments made while inebriated and making a jerk of himself on stage on p. 201 and on p. 217. It is unfortunate that she chose to focus on and share details about one individual, applying behavior standards of 2020 in the text when discussing the poor behavior choices he made, without little acknowledgement of the different set of behavior standards that were acceptable in the late 1950-early 1960's. She does note once in the text that NASA did nothing to discourage astronaut boorish behaviors at the time, nor did the military discourage these behaviors either. She never allows that there was a level of acceptability for this kind of poor behavior made by men in the military in order to "blow off some steam" after a stressful event at work or after a mission. Yes, some drank and partied, but they also used physical activities such as golf, tennis or other diversions to decompress. It was not until an increase in the number of women entering the military in the 1980's-1990's that a crackdown on sexist types of behavior was instituted in the military. To this day, the military still has to deal with the problem of rape, sexism, and sexual harassment within its ranks. (Siegel never mentions this in her wrapup. I would have rather her address this issue in the wrap up, than to include it within the text as she did.) Just to clarify, I do not condone boorish behavior by Shepard or anyone else in the past, however feel we need to be cognizant of the lens we are looking through at history when telling its story. It needs to be told with an understanding that this was the "norm" at the time, and clarified that in our current time, this behavior is not to be tolerated - not just condemned outright with no explanation as to why.
NOTE: It is my intent to look at a final copy of the book to see how many of these errors are corrected in the finished book. At that time, I will revise this list of errors.
A number of editorial problems were noted throughout the book, particularly when discussing aircraft:
• p. 44 - John Glenn's photo is backward; his medals are shown on the wrong side of his chest; they should be on his left.
• Throughout the text, Siegel is inconsistent in her naming conventions for aircraft. Sometimes she uses the airplane model number only (ex. p.16 - P-51, A-26, C-47), sometimes the name of the aircraft model only (ex. p.81-82 - Stratofortresses and Stratotankers are B-52s and KC135s, respectively), and sometimes both are mentioned, but named incorrectly (ex. p.39 - "Sabre (F-86)" is properly called a "North American F-86 Sabre"). There is an established designation system for naming aircraft, established by each branch of the military for the aircraft they fly. It is proper to use the name of the manufacturer, then the aircraft type and model, then aircraft name when mentioning an aircraft for the first time in the text. After that, then the aircraft type/model number or aircraft name can be used.
• p. 45 - Just an aside. Deke Slayton was not the only person to call the Douglas C-47 Skytrain a "gooney bird". That was a common nickname used by military personnel at that time. Veterans still refer to the C-47 as a "Gooney Bird" more often than not because it was so difficult and clumsy to fly.
• When referring to the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, U.S. Marines, U.S. Army, and U.S. Coast Guard in a familiar, shortened manner/nickname or as an adjective (as in Air Force, Navy/Naval, Marines/Marine, Army, and Coast Guard) the organization should be capitalized. These are the organizations' proper names. Many countries in the world have an "air force", "navy", "marines", "army" or "coast guard" - a generic name for the type of military affiliation. Go to their websites for verification. Remember that "navy" indicates a color and "marine" indicates something from the ocean.
• p. 18 - The word "naval" is redundant in front of the word "battleship" in the last paragraph.
• When referring to places by nicknames (particularly military bases of operation), the author should either clarify the nickname with the proper name, then be consistent in the use of the place name in the rest of the book. Or, choose to include this info in the glossary. Siegel refers to "Naval Air Station in Patuxent River" on p.14 (which should have been called Naval Air Station Patuxent River because that is the name of the NAS - it is located at the mouth of the Paxtuxent River, not in a town called Patuxent River - there is no such place), then calls it Pax River later p. 64, and finally calls it Pax even later on p.64. One wonders if Siegel understands that these names are all for the same location. She does the same with Edwards Air Force Base in California. Nicknames for military installations is local lingo that may be confusing for many readers unfamiliar with the bases.
• p. 38-39 - A Soviet MiG is mentioned, but never clarified what it was: a Russian fighter aircraft manufactured by the Mikoyan and Gurevich Design Bureau at the time. This term would have been helpful to include in the glossary, in the same way that the word "reconnaissance" is listed.
• p. 47 - The arresting hook or tailhook is attached to the underside of the tail of each aircraft that is equipped with a tailhook. It is not on the "belly", as stated in the book. The belly of a plane is inside and under the center fuselage of an airplane.
• p. 50 - editorial problem with the last sentence in the 2nd paragraph. Either she found a "niche student": war veterans or she developed a "niche program" aimed at war veterans.
• p. 61 - Test pilot school is not "at Patuxent River, Maryland", rather it is at at NAS Patuxent River or Naval Air Station Pax River.
• p. 87 - Carpenter would wear a Service Dress Blue Uniform, also known as "Service Dress Blues", not his "navy blues".
• pp. 206-207 - Choppy, out of sync timeline makes this passage awkward to read.
• p. 220 - Use of the term "U.S. Navy brass" is very informal, a slang term that doesn't fit in this list. In this case they should probably be called "high ranking Naval officers".
• p. 238 - 241 - The words "vice president" should be capitalized in all the places it is mentioned in this passage, as it was naming his formal title, not a description of his job: Vice President of the United States or Vice President. Ditto for "future president of the United States" on p. 241.
• p. 252 - The word "convention" should be capitalized, as it is part of the name of the Air Force Association Convention.
• p. 263 - The first sentence makes no sense. Glenn flew on Space Shuttle mission STS-95 aboard the orbiter Discovery (OV-103). He did not fly "...on board the space shuttle Discovery (STS-95)...".
• p. 278 - Same problem with Eileen Collins piloting Discovery (STS-63). Additionally, there is a repeat of John Glenn flying on Discovery to study how space affects an aging person's body here.
The book includes a good assortment of black and white period photographs of the astronauts and women pilots, with captions that relate to the text. Most are placed appropriately to match the text, though a few are a page turn away from their subject.
Backmatter includes two pages of glossary of terms, 34 pages of sources the author used, two pages of photo credits, and an (unseen) index. There is no bibliography or list of websites for further reading for young people who might want to learn more about this topic. Evaluation of the backmatter is evidence that Ms. Siegel has given only a cursory look at alot of materials about the early astronaut program. Her research was not deep; instead it was very superficial, as evidenced by the many errors. This particular book - as is with all of its flaws - does a disservice to military communities. There is no thought to military tradition or protocol evident in the text.
I find the subtitle of this book to be a bit misleading. I thought this book would be more about the lives of the women - and not a one-sided discussion of the preferential treatment the male astronauts received compared with the discrimination dealt to the women pilots. Tanya Lee Bolden's Robert F. Sibert Award-winning book, Almost Astronauts: 13 Women Who Dared to Dream, (Candlewick, c2009), does a much better job of telling a balanced story of these amazing women who were ahead of their time and denied the opportunity to be astronauts - without being preachy about the topic. For this reason, my suggestion is to skip To Fly Among the Stars and buy another of Bolden's Almost Astronauts for a richer reading experience.
Not recommended. For grades 7-10.