
Jack Parsons: Occultist involved in early rocketry - nkurz
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-04/23/jpl-jack-parsons/viewall
======
JoshTriplett
There are two different forms of scientific history. The history of science as
used for future scientific development lives in academic papers, journals,
conferences, and similar; those are preserved as a record of historical
development progress. That history is, when functioning correctly, blind to
outside issues like this.

On the other hand, there's scientific history as captured by news and popular
culture, which focuses on personalities, personal stories, struggles, and
development. In that version of history, it shouldn't be at all surprising
that people prefer to hide the crazy people and focus on those that can
successfully serve as visible PR figures. That doesn't denigrate their
contributions, but it avoids making them visible figureheads when they're not
appropriate for a figurehead role.

You can complain about outside politics affecting science, but far too often,
people like this will bring their politics into their science, such as in
interviews and discussions; sweeping people under the rug doesn't just happen
because of embarassment about past actions, but for fear of _future_
embarassment. And that future embarassment can then cause problems when trying
to get popular support and funding, which makes it entirely rational to focus
on the scientists who can safely talk to other people.

~~~
chez17
>You can complain about outside politics affecting science, but far too often,
people like this will bring their politics into their science

This seems incredibly one sided. By removing him, you've already brought
politics into science. You're wrong, this isn't about politics in science,
it's about "the right" politics or "the approved" politics in science.

You have a point, but it's very defeatist. You're essentially saying "people
can get turned off by opposing views. To remedy this, we'll make sure they
don't hear any opposing views". The remedy is to expose people to more
opposing views, not shelter them.

~~~
JoshTriplett
> This seems incredibly one sided. By removing him, you've already brought
> politics into science. You're wrong, this isn't about politics in science,
> it's about "the right" politics or "the approved" politics in science.

Ideally people shouldn't be bringing _any_ politics into science. But as sad
as it is, sometimes you have to deal with politics to get your research
sponsored, funded, and widely accepted. That's reality; please feel free to
tilt against that windmill, and more power to you if you can manage to change
it.

Meanwhile, there's always going to be a subset of scientists (and affiliated
non-scientists good at PR) who serve as the public face of a project, and like
it or not, they'll be selected for criteria _other_ than how good they are at
science.

As much as you might wish that to not be the case, rejecting it will not lead
to the outcomes you desire.

This is closely related to the issue of presentability and fashion. Many
scientists and engineers object to notions of fashion and other social
patterns that they rather reasonably believe should not matter; that objection
is fine. But that then turns into a kind of is-ought fallacious reasoning,
concluding that because those things _shouldn 't_ matter, caring about them
isn't important, or worse yet that actively opposing them is worthwhile. And
thus you have the stereotype of the engineer in T-shirt and jeans no matter
the occasion. The rational reasoning says "OK, perhaps those things shouldn't
matter, but in practice they _do_ matter, so live with that and learn to use
it when it benefits you".

When it comes to portraying science (or anything else) in popular culture,
many problems are isomorphic to fashion, and like it or not the rational
choice is to be fashionable.

~~~
chez17
At what point does it become a self fulfilling prophecy? If we continue to
cater to people who insist on demanding that research and funding go to the
prettiest scientist or the on that has the best power point who is to blame
when things like this happen? I think it's better to not be an enabler. Sure,
it may be harder and more complicated, but to me it's the right thing to do.
We're letting ignorance win when we have we shelter the ignorant.

~~~
JoshTriplett
I agree to some level, especially regarding politics and personality, but go
back and look at the article we're commenting on. Does that _sound_ like a
person who should be the public face of _any_ project?

~~~
calibraxis
Yes, definitely! Then scientists might be considered interesting human beings.

------
keithpeter
_" Day science employs reasoning that meshes like gears… One admires its
majestic arrangement like a da Vinci painting or a Bach fugue. One walks about
it as in a French formal garden…

Night science, on the other hand, wanders blindly. It hesitates, stumbles,
falls back, sweats, wakes with a start. Doubting everything… It is a workshop
of the possible… where thought proceeds along sensuous paths, tortuous
streets, most often blind alleys."_

Francois Jacob[1], _The Statue Within_.

Science and technology as an activity involves questioning, and finding new
ways of doing things. I imagine these activities are bound to attract people
on the edge of things a little. Having said that, Aleister Crowley was not the
kind of person you'd want to be involved closely with from what I can see.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Jacob](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Jacob)

~~~
pavel_lishin
Night Science sounds a lot like Cave Johnson in the Portal franchise.

 _" Just a heads up, we're gonna have a super conductor turned up full blast
and pointed at you for the duration of this next test. I'll be honest, we're
throwing science at the walls here to see what sticks. No idea what it'll
do."_

[http://www.cavejohnsonhere.com/](http://www.cavejohnsonhere.com/) "

------
rdl
There are a fair number of tech people I've encountered (mainly in the device
driver and security subcommunities) who are part of OTO, Temple of Set, or
other "left hand path" type occult groups or practices; a lot more who are
just "pagan". Not too far off from any mainstream religions in concentration,
which is way different from the general population.

~~~
GuiA
Interesting- I only know a handful of hardware people, and that includes a
pagan microchip designer. Is there a reason for those beliefs being more
prevalent in those communities?

~~~
Crito
I don't know if the connection really exists, or why it might, but I am
reminded of the connection Neal Stephenson draws between Babylonian Shaman and
programmers. Like how programmers utter incantations which have a special
power not fully understood by the rest of society, maybe hardware designers
create patterns and layouts which have special power. The general concept
appeals to them, so they are attracted to ideologies which incorporate similar
ideas?

~~~
violiner
I can't speak to hardware, but there's certainly a certain similarity between
occultism/esotericism and creating software - you have to be comfortable
thinking about and working with things that, in a sense, don't exist. That
doesn't mean they're not useful in their own way. It means that they don't
have objective reality in the same way that a lake or a car or a building
does.

~~~
h1karu
in the software world powerful spell books are definitely real :
[http://www.lisperati.com/casting.html](http://www.lisperati.com/casting.html)

~~~
wfn
You don't say! :)

Try googling for "the wizard book." See first result.

Marvel at the book's cover, [http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-
text/book/book.html](http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book.html)

P.S. for a kinda-scientific treatment of "what if magic was real [and obeyed
internally consistent laws]?", see ongoing scifi story
[http://qntm.org/ra](http://qntm.org/ra)

~~~
schoen
The TV Tropes folks have categorized this idea as "Magic A is Magic A":

[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagicAIsMagicA](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagicAIsMagicA)

The description of Magic Engineering in _Ra_ is worked out pretty
entertainingly, with people setting up university departments, research
programs, companies, etc., to apply magic to things like manufacturing and
transportation.

Spoiler alert for _Ra_ (no really, go read the story instead of this spoiler):

Va gur yngre puncgref vg'f funcvat hc gb ybbx yvxr gur ernfba gung "zntvp vf
erny" vf _abg_ gung vg'f n shaqnzragny cneg bs gur angher bs gur havirefr, ohg
gung vg jnf vzcyrzragrq va gur cnfg ol uhzna orvatf sbyybjvat n grpuabybtvpny
fvathynevgl, lrg gung gur crbcyr fghqlvat vg naq cenpgvpvat vg gbqnl qba'g
xabj gung gung fvathynevgl unf unccrarq. (Gur choyvp jebatyl oryvrirf gung
zntvp jnf nyjnlf n cneg bs angher.)

Gur rknpg ernfba gung gur trareny choyvp vf pbzcyrgryl hanjner gung gur
fvathynevgl vf nyernql va gurve cnfg (be gung zntvp vf n uhzna perngvba!) vf
fgvyy na rkpvgvat cbvag bs batbvat qvfchgr va gur fgbel, naq V'z dhvgr rkpvgrq
gb svaq bhg gur nafjre.

~~~
wfn
..english letter frequency table based remapping did not help me here (and
that was the extent of my effort).. I'm beginning to think that this might
have been one of those autoironic fourth wall story-narrative-mocking jokes!
Did you just pull a Derrida on me?

(Thanks for the tvtropes article; it links to another one
([http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MinovskyPhysics](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MinovskyPhysics))
which mentions "Schild's ladder"; which makes their arguments ex vi termini
pretty great!)

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
It's ROT-13, try this
[http://web.forret.com/tools/rot13.asp](http://web.forret.com/tools/rot13.asp)
\- and a nice way to obfuscate a spoiler.

~~~
wfn
Ah! I should have known better. ROT-13 for the win!

------
fit2rule
Prejudice takes many forms, and those who forget their own personal
responsibility for the destructive effects of judgement, incur the final
injustice. The people we choose to 'hate' and 'despise' \- for religious,
political, industrial, or .. other .. reasons - end up being a part of the
universe that we isolate ourselves from.

The universe is bigger than you. Get over it. Make friends. Prejudice against
the lives of others is a little step closer to the grave.

~~~
themodelplumber
Bravo. There's also something to be said for persuasion through friendship and
tolerance. E pluribus unum and all that. There are many different textures in
a good melting pot.

~~~
fit2rule
I imagine a world where the vast, arbitrary .. human .. distance between magic
and science are embraced by the world at large, and not shunned by the ruling
technocratic order. What if, in fact, we could discuss the vast magick order
here on Earth so comfortably well that one day, we do it on the Moon?

I wonder if we will go to Mars with purely scientific purposes in mind? I hope
not.

~~~
h1karu
"We have been to the moon, we have charted the depths of the ocean and the
heart of the atom, but we have a fear of looking inward to ourselves because
we sense that is where all the contradictions flow together." -Terrence
Mckenna

------
nnq
This an interesting philosophical and liberal political essay he wrote:
[http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/bb/babalon210.htm](http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/bb/babalon210.htm)
.

If you skip some bits of mystical mumbo-jumbo, there is _a serious and very
original take on liberal philosophy and politics in there!_

------
kghose
From the summary it seems that Parsons was more one of the people involved in
early rocketry rather than a central and driving figure. It is possible that
this is much ado about nothing - the author of the book (as well as the person
writing about the book) is using Parson's colorful personal life as
titillation and is playing up their connection with the rocketry program to
sell the book (Otherwise it's just a story about another eccentric bohemian in
Pasadena).

------
blauwbilgorgel
Parsons still has a crater on the moon named after him. Very interesting story
though. I think Parsons is more renowned in occult circles than in scientific
circles. His legacy remains in both.

------
avmich
The article evokes some doubts - particularly statement "JPL... first
government-sponsored rocket lab in history". According to article, that
happened in "late 1930-s", but already in 1933 in USSR rocket groups GIRD and
GDL were combined into a research institute.

A highly recommended "Ignition!"
([http://www.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pdf](http://www.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pdf))
- a history of liquid propellant research by John Clark briefly describes
genesis of JPL, mentioning Malina and Theodor von Karman. According to that,
GALCIT was "Malina's group" (if I remember correctly).

~~~
walshemj
And the VFR funded by the Reichswehr in the early 30's

------
MisterMashable
That's a shame really. Recording history shouldn't be motivated by politics
and other peoples' sensibilities being offended. Regarding Aleister Crowley
being 'The Wickedest Man on Earth', not even close. If you've ever read M.
Scott Peck's 'People of the Lie', then you know what I mean.

~~~
anigbrowl
That was a title Crowley took for himself, as he enjoyed being a notorious
figure. His actual behavior, though, amounted to little more than being a sex
maniac and saying blasphemous things during a much more socially conservative
era. His 'autohagiography' makes for entertaining reading if you can get past
the turgid Victorian prose.

As for Parsons, the Wired article is being a bit clickbaity. In the last
paragraph: _Wired.co.uk contacted JPL and we asked whether Parsons had been
written out of the history books. Historian Erik Conway said: "Jack Parsons is
included in history books and other venues, and in fact, his role is discussed
in the JPL-involved standard history, JPL and the American Space Program by
Clayton R. Koppes. Parsons was one of the original founders of JPL. He was the
team's chemist and developed the first castable solid propellant used to power
aircraft."_

~~~
mturmon
I agree, and I'd even upgrade your "a bit clickbaity" to "very clickbaity". I
happen to work at JPL, and elements of the Parsons story are generally known
to people at the lab. I just don't think they're that interesting. Certainly,
complaining that the oddball philosophy of one of the four founders is not
featured in the lab tour is ridiculous. People come on the lab tour to see
robots and rockets, not to talk about occult side-interests.

If you want interesting side stories, how about Qian Xuesen, who was also one
of the original handful of JPL founders, and who was hounded from his position
and went on to found the Chinese rocket program. (Discussed on HN previously,
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6905862](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6905862)).
That's a historical figure who has actual significance, not just odd/occult
tendencies.

The other interesting back story, besides Wehrner von Braun, is that of the
principal founder of JPL, Theodore von Karman, who was a Hungarian Jew who
left Europe in 1930. Von Karman was the first Director of JPL. Another founder
with a back-story of considerable significance.

~~~
dang
You and others have a good point about the title. We've edited it to take out
the linkbait.

Great comment, too!

~~~
nkurz
As context for future readers, the submitted HN title was the same as the
actual title of the article: "Occultist Father of Rocketry 'Written Out' of
NASA'S History". Definitely link-bait, although unedited primary-source link-
bait.

(dang: Leaving notes when changing titles is great, thanks!)

------
zurn
There's another book about him, called Sex and Rockets: The Occult World of
Jack Parsons. Anyone read both books?

[http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Rockets-Occult-World-
Parsons/dp/09...](http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Rockets-Occult-World-
Parsons/dp/0922915970)

------
MisterMashable
Pascual Jordan, one of the founding fathers of quantum mechanics along with
Dirac, Heisenberg, Pauli and Born had his name essentially written out of the
history books because of his association with the Nazi party which really
amounted to overlooking what the Nazis were doing and saying some positive
comments about the Nazis. I don't like what Jordan did. Heisenberg is a less
controversial figure which some people claimed had skeletons in his closet
regarding the Nazi party. Nothing really came of it and Heisenberg's
reputation has been untouched except a few still hold questions regarding his
conduct. I'd like to know if this issue was ever cleared up. Heisenberg is
still (rightly) remembered as a chief architect but Pascual Jordan whose
contributions equal or exceed Pauli is almost entirely written out.

------
nsxwolf
In today's atheistic science culture I'm not even sure who is offended by
this.

~~~
api
On the contrary, there's a certain thread of the skeptic movement that attacks
anything that isn't "scientific" enough. It's basically a kind of
fundamentalism. Fundie positivism?

~~~
flatline
Scientism?

~~~
astine
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism)

------
peterwwillis
> "A lot of people would be shocked to find out that the space programme was
> founded by a man who held orgies in his Pasadena mansion."

If we had to kick every eccentric out of science there wouldn't be anyone left
to invent anything. Might as well write Newton out of the history books too
for 30 years of failed attempts at alchemy and occult research.

~~~
gaius
Since Captain Kirk, people _expect_ space heroes to have vast sexual
appetites.

------
soneca
I think people here were too quick to buy the OP theory that JP was "written
out of NASA's history". Quoting the first comment on the article:

 _" Parsons was mentioned frequently in a recent JPL-produced documentary on
the early days of the space age and the founding of the Lab. And, his name
sits on engraved plaque in a central area of JPL that commemorates all the
members of the "suicide squad" involved in the first rocket test firing. I
suppose your headline makes sense seeing as he died several years before NASA
was founded so he may not be in a NASA history book. But wrong to say he's
written out of JPL's early history."_

Blame someone of our present time for some misbehave must generate more clicks
than just pointing out how prejudice harmed someone's carreer on government
decades ago, which seems to be the real story here. Good that the HN title was
edited for a less sensationalist one.

------
carlob
1000$ around 1940 are about 17000$ today. I don't know what the point of
converting them to today's British pounds is.

[https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1000%20usd%201940](https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1000%20usd%201940)

~~~
kedean
This is from wired.co.uk, it's expected that readers know pounds better than
dollars.

~~~
carlob
My point was that they should have converted from 1940 dollars, not today's.

------
ttflee
The first time I heard about this kind of stuff when I was searching 'Aleister
Crowley' in Google but hit Jet Propulsion Lab in the following story:

[http://io9.com/5978746/the-strangely-true-connection-
between...](http://io9.com/5978746/the-strangely-true-connection-between-
scientology-the-jet-propulsion-lab-and-pagan-sorcery)

------
randomflavor
It's fascinating how scientology was formed out of Hubbard stealing his wife,
scamming him out of money... and then his ex wife and hubbard founded
scientology - using a bastardized version of Thelema as a means to control and
bilk money out of 'thin' personalities that are looking for help and
validation. Quite a use of the occult!

------
at-fates-hands
>>> "A lot of people would be shocked to find out that the space programme was
founded by a man who held orgies in his Pasadena mansion."

Still wondering how the heck that would ever find its way into an academic
book about NASA or the JPL considering how people are up in arms about
anything that goes into text books these days.

------
h1karu
I wonder why Wired magazine has been wading into "deep politics" more and more
recently. I mean the German and Occult underpinnings of NASA is a significant
can of worms for a publication with a mainstream readership to be opening.

~~~
jonnathanson
In fairness, Parsons's occult history isn't particularly new, shocking, or
politically dangerous ground in 2014.

It's not mainstream knowledge, by any means. And I'm sure a lot of folks are
reading about it in Wired for the first time. But Parsons's backstory has been
covered pretty extensively -- most recently as a significant side chapter (or
two) in "Going Clear," the NYT-bestselling book about L Ron Hubbard and
Scientology. Prior to that, Parsons figured prominently into "Barefaced
Messiah," another Scientology history, written in the late 1980s.

For the record, "Going Clear" and "Barefaced Messiah" are fascinating reads. I
recommend them. It's unfortunate that Parsons, a man of legitimate and
numerous accomplishments, has been so thoroughly overshadowed by the con
artist L Ron Hubbard. But Hubbard had a much better knack for publicity.

~~~
mturmon
Prior discussions of the Parsons story are not confined to Scientology
history.

It was covered (in 2 or 3 pages IIRC) in Mike Davis's 1990 book "City of
Quartz". This book was widely reviewed and widely discussed, and was re-issued
a couple of years ago.

That's where I first read the Parsons story, and I've seen it a few times
since then.

~~~
jonnathanson
_" Prior discussions of the Parsons story are not confined to Scientology
history."_

True. I'm just pointing it out because it's a big vector by which a lot of
mainstream audiences are likely to have discovered Parsons and his
extracurricular activities. Especially in recent years, with "Going Clear"
coming out and hitting the charts. My point was mostly that this stuff is not
fresh scandal, hot off the presses.

~~~
mturmon
Sorry if I did not convey that I was not correcting, just supplementing what
you said. I already upvoted your comment FWIW.

~~~
jonnathanson
Oh, it's all good. I upvoted yours, as well. :) I have a tendency to respond
with supplemental information to a lot of my replies, and from time to time,
it can come across as defensive. It's not meant to be.

------
uptownJimmy
Has nobody here read "Gravity's Rainbow"?

Love and rockets, indeed.

~~~
walshemj
Reading GR gave me a chance to be ultra geeky one evening in one of my fluids
classes by correctly identifying a lump of crumpled metal as an A4 fuel pump.

I went to college in Bedford which is next door to an RAE R&D station where
they brought back captured Nazi tech – and half the course worked at
twinwoods.

Though I never got to go round the black museum at Cranfield where they had
loads of v2 bits - I did see the sad TSR2 they had there though

~~~
uptownJimmy
That's what I'm talking about. That's the good stuff.

------
moron4hire
>> "When you think about scientists, you don't think of them as necessarily
being fun or having a creative side..."

Jeez, speak for yourself.

~~~
Varcht
Really! They don't watch 3rd Rock?

------
pavel_lishin
Now I'm waiting for Parsons to appear in one of Charles Stross's novels.

(Also waiting for cstross to appear in this thread.)

------
j_baker
Am I the only one who's annoyed by the author's inappropriate use of the
plural possessive apostrophe?

s/Parsons'/Parsons's/g

~~~
mike-cardwell
Why is it inappropriate? That's the correct usage isn't it? Bare in mind this
is a UK website...

