Slashdot Mirror


Do You Have the Right Stuff To Be an Astronaut?

Hugh Pickens writes "Do you have what it takes to become an astronaut? NASA, the world's leader in space and aeronautics, is now hiring outstanding scientists, engineers, and other talented professionals until January 27, 2012 for full time, permanent employment to carry forward the great discovery process that its mission demands. 'Creativity. Ambition. Teamwork. A sense of daring. And a probing mind.' To qualify, you'll need at least a bachelor's degree in science, engineering or mathematics. Certain degrees are immediate disqualifiers, including nursing, social sciences, aviation, exercise physiology, technology, and some psychology degrees, too. The job listing mandates '1,000 hours pilot-in-command time in jet aircraft' unless you have three years of 'related, progressively responsible, professional experience' like being an astronaut somewhere else maybe? 'Since astronauts will be expected to fly on Russia's Soyuz spacecraft, they must fit Russia's physical requirements for cosmonauts. That means no one under 5 foot 2 inches or over 6 foot 3 inches.' Applicants brought in for interviews will be measured to make sure they meet the job application's 'anthropometric requirements.' You'll need to pass a drug test, a comprehensive background check, a swimming test, and have 20/20 vision in each eye and it almost goes without saying that candidates will need to be in 'incredible shape.' Applicants must pass NASA's long-duration space flight physical, which evaluates individuals based on 'physical, physiological, psychological, and social' stressors, like one's ability to work in small, confined spaces for hours on end. And of course...'Frequent travel may be required.'"

229 comments

  1. Kerbal Space Program by InterestingFella · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm not sure if I'm a good astronaut, but I'm hell of a good guy to design space shuttles. I've been playing Kerbal Space Program lately so I know this stuff. If someone is a good astronaut contact me!

    1. Re:Kerbal Space Program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You mean like diapers, mace, a bb-gun, duct tape and a hammer?

    2. Re:Kerbal Space Program by 2.7182 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You sir are spreading nonsensical and malicious rumors about our astronauts. The astronaut we are discussing did not have any duct tape, on her person or in the trunk of her car parked at the airport. I think you are confusing it with the surgical tubing and/or the folding knife.

    3. Re:Kerbal Space Program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Definitely the craziest bitch I've heard of in recent years, that's for sure...

    4. Re:Kerbal Space Program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, Lisa Nowak is soo hot! I can't believe she didn't get some porn offers after her trial.

    5. Re:Kerbal Space Program by datavirtue · · Score: 4, Insightful

      NASA has a management system that is proven defunct. I wouldn't want to risk it souring my resume. Not very attractive. When your management and bureaucracy is bad enough to kill people it kind of drains out the incentive. I want to spend my life with a smart company and team enthralled with the prospect of surviving on their raw success. Bureaucracies survive because of status quo and tax payer windfall. You can keep it. If you have ever worked in a bureaucracy AND a real business you know the difference. In a bureaucracy people go through the motions and typically loath their job, in a thriving business people are alive with the smell of opportunity constantly perking their eyes--save for a massive corporation. That is why startups are so attractive.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    6. Re:Kerbal Space Program by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Like no one saw this coming? Her dad's name was fucking Alfredo for god's sake! Have we had a decent Italian on this planet for several centuries? WTF?! Bureaucracies, that's what you get.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    7. Re:Kerbal Space Program by martin-boundary · · Score: 2

      If someone is a good astronaut contact me!

      Hi,

      I'm Kevin Spacey. As you can see from my picture, I'm a good astronaut!

      I'm available for Soyuz missions on most weekdays, but I have little league commitments every second weekend, and I like to head back home after 5pm if possible during the week. So call me, and let's get this thing off the ground for the new year!

    8. Re:Kerbal Space Program by demachina · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Exactly right. Mod parent up.

      Most of NASA's astronauts are resigning because the one and only thing they are going to be doing the rest of this decade is flying to the ISS and spin around in LEO for extended periods. They will mostly be playing janitor and physiology lab rat assuming they can even get one of the precious few available slots.

      SpaceX is a lot more interesting place to be an astronaut now. They will be working on Dragon, new launchers and aiming for Mars, instead of being a paying passenger in a Russian space craft and going where so many have gone before.

      --
      @de_machina
    9. Re:Kerbal Space Program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I can't help but hate myself a little when people are sticking their noses up at the prospect of being NASA astronauts going to the ISS... because it'd be too boring and unimpressive on their resume.

      I think I'd be honored to scrub the floors for NASA.

    10. Re:Kerbal Space Program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your morbid obesity and lack of intelligence will be a big loss to NASA

    11. Re:Kerbal Space Program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That thing requires a reasonably modern computer and yet doesn't seem to do much more than any 10 year old computer game did. What is the world coming to when we need 2GB of RAM to simulate a few cylinders?

    12. Re:Kerbal Space Program by yurtinus · · Score: 2

      Right, because "former astronaut" looks great on a resume *until* you list that you were one of those gosh darned NASA astronauts...

      --
      +1 Disagree
    13. Re:Kerbal Space Program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if they could hold a colon fulla water and make it upstairs to the head, like in the movie,"The Right Stuff" I think the program could use a few men like that. Mistress Helga Von Whipstracht, their trainer would be mildly amused, if not proud.

             

    14. Re:Kerbal Space Program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think if you could make it racially equal instead of only using token blacks. Give all Blacks and Hispanics as well an opportunity to get a colon full of water and get shot into space. It could be reasonably argued to shoot all Blacks into space would be a desirable goal. Louis Farrakhan just wants them to make it to the mothership on the dark side of the moon. Parliment/Funkadelic sing of it. Afronauts. It's Christmas time. Maybe we can all dig deep and make this work in the coming year. I have a dream.

    15. Re:Kerbal Space Program by flyneye · · Score: 1

      O.K. I'll bite. What astronaut related story has this kinky array of amusements? Also, what do you do in the trunk with it and with whom?

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  2. I'm 6'6" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No Soyuz for me :(

    1. Re:I'm 6'6" by ISoldat53 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I have enough stuff for two astronauts.

    2. Re:I'm 6'6" by EdIII · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's a bit ambiguous. Would that impress the ladies or strike fear in the hearts of Chinese food buffet owners everywhere?

    3. Re:I'm 6'6" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

    4. Re:I'm 6'6" by slyrat · · Score: 1

      No Soyuz for me :(

      Me too, though in my case it is because I'm insulin dependent diabetic. I'm going to have to wait until going into space is more like paying for an airplane flight.

  3. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just finished a box of Kraft Dinner and I'm sitting here reading Slashdot... go ahead and mark a 'no' down for me.

    1. Re:Hmm by 2.7182 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't count yourself out just yet. If you can tolerate a kraft dinner you certainly could live on whatever astronauts are fed.

  4. No chance. by Avarist · · Score: 2

    Too bad they only hire the best of the best. Even if they'd send 1.000 people into space, it'd still wouldn't be enough to have any statistically significant chance of being accepted.

    --
    In Capitalist US, the commerce controls the Government.
    1. Re:No chance. by InterestingFella · · Score: 1

      it'd still wouldn't be enough to have any statistically significant chance of being accepted.

      Now that's the spirit!

    2. Re:No chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad they only hire the best of the best. Even if they'd send 1.000 people into space, it'd still wouldn't be enough to have any statistically significant chance of being accepted.

      ... that's not what "statistically significant" means. A difference is statistically significant if you can be confident it is larger than zero in the presence of noisy measurements. The size of the difference (from zero) is not directly relevant. Laypersons associate large differences with statistical significance because it is easier to be confident a difference is larger than zero when your noisy measurements exhibit large differences. However, a large difference with lots of data can still be statistically insignificant if there is a lot of variation, and a small difference with moderate amounts of data can be statistically significant if there is very little variation.

      However, in this case, our measurements are basically without noise, so statistical significance doesn't make any sense; a non-zero number of people will selected.

    3. Re:No chance. by Avarist · · Score: 2

      My point is, it's like they'd announce they're recruiting James Bonds' or Presidents.

      --
      In Capitalist US, the commerce controls the Government.
    4. Re:No chance. by hodet · · Score: 5, Funny

      Now remember son... "“No matter how good you are at something, there's always about a million people better than you.” - Homer J Simpson.

    5. Re:No chance. by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      The way I learned it, a statistically significant difference between two measurements definitely relates to the noise (if I'm understanding what you mean by noise). If the 'noise' causes a mean value to have a deviation for a given confidence (always happens unless you get exactly the same measurement on each sample... and then I would suspect the sampling technique), for you to tell if there really is a statistically significant difference between the two measurements, the difference needs to be greater than the deviation. Reason being is that if it falls within the deviation for that confidence level, it is falls under the curve of what counts for the mean value. i.e. you expect to have values on either side of the mean that you have said represents the mean, statistically. I may not be saying that clearly, but hopefully you get my drift.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    6. Re:No chance. by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      I reread your post again... never mind, we're saying the same thing... I think.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    7. Re:No chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good last starfighter reference. He qualified with a video game

  5. NASA, the world's leader in space and aeronautics. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Really? How do your 'astronots' get into space again these days? Oh....yeah. Hope that stings.

  6. NASA is the world leader in what? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Informative

    NASA, the world's leader in space and aeronautics

    Say what?

    In case you haven't noticed, NASA is the FORMER leader in space and aeronautics. Space access is now a Russian and European affair, and the Chinese are getting in the game. But the US dropped the ball: NASA is just an administration dedicated to sink money down the drain these days...

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by AndrewNeo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe if they /had/ the money to sink down the drain we wouldn't be having this problem..

    2. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      I suppose it depends on what you include. NASA is still a pretty strong first, with the European Space Agency in second, when it comes to scientific research in space, e.g. sending probes to other planets, the Hubble space telescope, etc.

    3. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes I'm sure NASA spent every penny they received judiciously and none was spent on hookers and blow. None at all.

    4. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by olsmeister · · Score: 2

      And it ranks pretty high in actually getting probes to Mars, too.

    5. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      yeah, I hate it those Russians and Europeans announcing all those super-earth and earth-sized worlds around other stars. And while we can only dream of having sent probes to all the planets like they have.

    6. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by rubycodez · · Score: 4, Funny

      I can confidently say no NASA money was wasted on hookers and blow, in space. yet.

    7. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by masternerdguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's a sick cosmic irony in flying to space on the rockets of your former competitors. Considering the cool stuff NASA was doing with Apollo there isn't an excuse for not having a moon base by now.

      --
      To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
    8. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by Alomex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is ANSI approved American chauvinism. It is standard practice to call anything American "the best in the world" without any data to back it up. Furthermore, if you dare question it you are considered "unpatriotic".

      For example, traditionally people say that the USA armed forces are "the best fighting force in the world". While certainly the best equipped and nothing to sneer at, over the last 70 years the title "best fighting force" squarely belongs to the Viet Minh army which defeated, in sequence, the much superior armies of Japan and Vichy France (World War II), the French Republic (first Indochina war), the French Republic again (second Indochina war), the USA (Vietnam war) and the Chinese army (third Indochina war, admittedly considered a draw by some).

      If you were to bring up that point at a bar, you might as well save time and ask for a wedgie to begin with.

    9. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Actually NASA's funding has been very stable for the last 40 years.

    10. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I follow. While NASA is certainly having issues, none of the other programs are particularly stronger.

      Russia: Riding the coat-tails of good design decisions many years ago (not that there's anything wrong with that, I wish we had a Soyuz-like design). Soyuz is simple and reliable and they can just keep on flying them without significant development costs. However, as indicated by their recent Mars probe their new development efforts have unfortunately decayed -- GRUNT suffered from not enough money to support decent redundancy and contingency planning.

      Chinese: New and developing, and building on Soviet technology. I hope their efforts will be strong and civil-focused, even after the geo-political advantages fade, but in anything but currently being able to reproduce Soviet results with plenty of money, there's nothing I'm too worried about.

      Europeans: Here's where you lost me. If your criteria was 'currently being able to fly people' then I could understand (but disagree), but the ESA is essentially a peer to the science mission directorate at NASA, with no manned capability. Considering EU budgets are even more problematic than the US budget I wouldn't say that their taking the lead, though I hope they remain valuable partners.

      Personally, I'm tired of all the negativity about the NASA right now. Its been a rough few years, with no one in charge having enough sense to put NASA's manned program on a sustainable course. Now though, even with this SLS nonsense, we're finally on a path to develop robust access capabilities with multiple capsules on multiple launch vehicles. The unmanned programs are shining brightly still, with 3 launches, a comet flyby, the first vehicle in orbit of an asteroid, and the first spacecraft arriving at Mercury this year. We've continued to find more and stronger evidence of water on Mars, and have found ever-more Earth-like exo-planets. Not too shabby for one year.

    11. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by masternerdguy · · Score: 1

      Compare NASA's budget to the US Defense Budget. Stable nothing is still nothing.

      --
      To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
    12. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure I follow. While NASA is certainly having issues, none of the other programs are particularly stronger..

      Says it all doesn't it? How are they a "World Leader" if they can't even get themselves into space? Sure, the other agencies are playing catchup, that is, the race never ended, but for some reason NASA has been benched. It won't take that long for the others to catch up. As noted, they already lead in one particularly crucial area.

      Maybe NASA doesn't deserve the hate, but the country they are located in, does.

    13. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by Baloroth · · Score: 2

      I wish I could get even a small quantity of that "nothing." A nothing which funded hundreds of shuttle launches, both Voyager probes, several Mars probes, and dozens of miscellaneous projects. Amazing what nothing can get you these days.

      Also, $15 billion (a year) isn't "nothing" even in congressional spending terms. One of the most expensive and advanced aircraft in the world (the F-22) cost only ~4 years at that budget. And that was stock full of pork.

      Of course I would love to see them have more. Just pointing out that even for the US budget $15+ billion is a fair bit.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    14. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The U.S. got to the moon first. What more proof do you need?

      Also, as to the best military: the Vietcong didn't save Europe twice. And let's not pretend that nuclear weapons could turn the entire Vietnam peninsula into a sinking, smoking wreck in about two days.

      Read more, hate less, please.

    15. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by Koreantoast · · Score: 1

      In case you haven't noticed, NASA is the FORMER leader in space and aeronautics

      I think you're taking a VERY narrow view of what national space agencies does. Yes, in terms of manned space flight, we've fallen a bit behind (though certainly not out of the game with future capsules in play). However, as some other posters mentioned, we are still doing a lot in terms of actual aeronautics and space exploration. The Mars probes and operation of the space station are the best known, but there's still a whole slew of projects in play.

    16. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      I suppose you can divide NASA into two parts. On one hand, NASA is the leader of space exploration through satellite instrumentation and planetary robotics. On the other, the more sexy, manned space exploration such orbital mission, space labs, and men landing on the moon. I would say NASA's ability to excel on the first part exceeds any the shortcomings of the second part. It seems almost every day now how many discoveries NASA is able to make like never before.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    17. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      The U.S. got to the moon first. What more proof do you need?

      Welcome to the 21st century. The moon landing was just over 40 years ago. So, as a non-US person, I'll give you that 40 years ago the US was first by a mile and achieved something truly awe inspiring. But that was 40 years ago and today I think it is far less clear that the US government is first...and even if it is it is barely first.

      However I think in terms of the private space sector I think you definitely are in the lead...but it remains to be seen whether you'll keep it or whether the interests of the large global corporations and/or health/safety/environmental issues will end up stifling the new, young innovative space companies that you currently have (I hope not!).

    18. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by youn · · Score: 1

      I can confidently say plenty of people would pay to watch that and you could get tons of funding haha.... maybe not governmental, but definitely tons of individuals would be interested :)

      --
      Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
    19. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can confidently say no NASA money was wasted on hookers and blow, in space. yet.

      Money has never been wasted on hookers and blow. Spent, yes, but not wasted.

    20. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by hjf · · Score: 1

      Argentina (yes) is getting to space too! We're supposed to launch some rocket (Tronador II they call it. 28m high or something) next year.

      As an argentinian, I'll believe it when I see it.

    21. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by JonySuede · · Score: 1

      +42

      --
      Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
    22. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      There's a sick cosmic irony in flying to space on the rockets of your former competitors. Considering the cool stuff NASA was doing with Apollo there isn't an excuse for not having a moon base by now.

      Actually, it's the same good excuse as for why nobody has built a permanent underwater city yet... not economically viable. Sure, we could do it, but, why? Actually, I believe that if we said "damn the accountants" and did it anyway (Lunar or undersea), we'd get a good ROI from all the spinoff from the R&D required to pull it off - that's how it worked developing heavy lift ICBMs with a "for all mankind" glossy PR campaign painted on them.

    23. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by similar_name · · Score: 1

      Just pointing out that even for the US budget $15+ billion is a fair bit.

      I guess if .4% is a fair bit (15/3456 2010 budget).

    24. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I cannot believe that was not modded as insightful +69.

    25. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by demachina · · Score: 1

      Those things are done by different parts of NASA than the manned space office at issue for these astronaut slots.

      JPL is barely part of NASA, it started out completely independent and still retains substantial distance from the stupidity and bureaucracy that is NASA's manned space program and headquarters.

      Goddard also does a lot of great work.

      The stupid parts of NASA are at Johnson, Marshall and Kennedy which have done their best to squander their Apollo legacy.

      --
      @de_machina
    26. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by demachina · · Score: 5, Informative

      The only thing the U.S. saved Europe from in World War II was being completely overrun by our ally at the time, the Soviet Union.

      The Soviet Union defeated Nazi Germany at Stalingrad and Kursk in 1942-1943 when the U.S. was barely even engaged in Europe. Germany's defeat was a foregone conclusion by the time the U.S. landed at Normandy in 1944. The U.S. helped win the war certainly but it simply wasn't the decisive force the Soviet Union was or that you are claiming.

      Its true the U.S. helped turn the tide against Germany in World War I, but that was simply due to a huge infusion of fresh troops and supplies in to a war where all the incumbent armies and nations were spent. There wasn't anything exceptional about the U.S. troops, any infusion of a million fresh troops from anywhere would have had the same effect.

      All things considered, you proved the grandparents point by flaunting how self infatuated and self inflating American's can be. The grandparent is correct, the Vietnamese were probably the most succesful military in the 20th century, and I would add the Afghans as a close second, because they have defeated every vastly superior force they've faced including the Soviet Union and the U.S.

      --
      @de_machina
    27. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's not quite true. I saw a compelling documentary recently on the economic feasibility of building an underwater city. I can't remember what it was called, but the narrator was a business tycoon named Andrew Ryan. You should be able to find it on Youtube.

    28. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if NASA being the FORMER leader in space and aeronautics has anything to do with Obama's NASA chief being tasked with making "outreach to Muslims as NASA's primary mission"?

    29. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NASA, the world's leader in space and aeronautics

      Say what?

      In case you haven't noticed, NASA is the FORMER leader in space and aeronautics. Space access is now a Russian and European affair, and the Chinese are getting in the game. But the US dropped the ball: NASA is just an administration dedicated to sink money down the drain these days...

      With some very over stated conditions just to fly around i have read some cobblers on here but do me a favour tell NASA to freel off and come back with a set of specs that lets actual PEOPLE not US Army robots only cus that is what the spec reads like a listing for Ultimate soldier

    30. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by binarylarry · · Score: 0

      Holy fuck you are delusional.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    31. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      GP is 100% right. It just goes to show how skewed is the view of Americans about their own forces and their role in war. Which again only proves the point of the OP.

    32. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by Alomex · · Score: 1

      And let's not pretend that nuclear weapons could turn the entire Vietnam peninsula into a sinking, smoking wreck in about two days.

      Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

      According to your argument the Soviet Union won the war in Afghanistan, as they could have nuked Afghanistan too, just like the USA could have nuked Vietnam.

      Wars are rarely fought until there is a last man standing. Rather, they are fought until one side loses the will to fight, to take the next step, to lose the next man.

    33. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How can you be "first" in a race consisting of one competitor?

      The Soviets (wisely) decided not to engage in a manned moon landing "race" and devoted their resources (correctly) to probes and unmanned missions where their ROI was much higher. The USA wanted the bragging rights so spent a huge amount of money on a PR exercise that didn't actually achieve as much "real" science as the Soviets did for a fraction of the cost.

      The US military did not "save' Europe twice. WW2 was won by the Soviets, and in WW1 the US was content to stand back until 1918 and then come on and claim victory after the European armies had exhausted themselves.

      Also, the US could not (and never will) "nuke" anyone into a smouldering mess for expediency. If that occurred the other nuclear powers might very well turn the US into a radioactive hole in the ground at the worst, or a bankrupt pariah state at the very best.

      Just remember, you're only a small part of the world, no matter how "special" Fox News thinks you are.

      The level of propaganda that the average US citizen is exposed to is nothing short of amazing, it puts Pravda and the Politburo to shame these days.

    34. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Soviet Union defeated Nazi Germany at Stalingrad and Kursk in 1942-1943 when the U.S. was barely even engaged in Europe. Germany's defeat was a foregone conclusion by the time the U.S. landed at Normandy in 1944. The U.S. helped win the war certainly but it simply wasn't the decisive force the Soviet Union was or that you are claiming.

      That's fairly revisionist there. You forgot the Pacific and North African fronts.. We lost half a million troops... That's not "just pitching in at the last minute".

    35. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about? Afghanistan has been taken over, the Taliban are done. All that's left are a few squabbling camps of disorganized fighters still trying for a lost cause. How does that equal a victory for them?

      I'll give you that the nuclear "option" isn't really an option, as it ultimately means defeat for the whole world, but the U.S. still has the biggest stockpile. Makes me a bit nervous of their power, doesn't it do the same for you?

      Finally, I suppose the definition of "best" is in dispute here. Winning by special circumstances happens, but it is not indicative of a straight fight.. In terms of troop strength, technology, military spending, the U.S. has the rest of the world beat except for perhaps China. Vietnam isn't even a footnote in that list. Not to mention, not even one of their troops ever set foot on American soil. So again, the definition of "best" is in question, isn't it?

    36. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by necro81 · · Score: 1

      Considering the cool stuff NASA was doing with Apollo there isn't an excuse for not having a moon base by now

      Sure there is: the public got all starry-eyed at the Buck Rogers stuff and beating the Soviets to the Moon, then realized that this shit is really f*&king expensive and decided they had other priorities. Combine that with a general lack of long-term vision, leadership, and political will in government, and you have all the "excuse" you need. Everyone still expects wonders from NASA, and sometimes they get them, but the public generally doesn't want to pony up for it.

    37. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      NASA, the world's leader in space and aeronautics

      Say what?

      In case you haven't noticed, NASA is the FORMER leader in space and aeronautics. Space access is now a Russian and European affair, and the Chinese are getting in the game. But the US dropped the ball: NASA is just an administration dedicated to sink money down the drain these days...

      NASA is still a leader in both, they just don't own a car any more and need a ride to get to space. Mars exploration is the perfect example from 1990 until the present day there have been 20 missions to mars there have only been two successful non-Americana missions. Of the 8 missions currently planned the US is involved in 4 of them twice as many as Europe.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    38. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by demachina · · Score: 1

      The Taliban is alive and well and owns the night in Afghanistan. They will continue to bleed the U.S., NATO and Karzai's government until the inevitable day the U.S. and NATO leaves, possibly as early as 2014, at which point Karzai wont last a month.

      I wasn't refering to the Taliban specifically anyway. The Afghans in general have eventually broken every conqueror in recent history. It may take time but eventually they all leave. In the case of the U.S.S.R. its occupation of Afghanistan was a key factor in its collapse soon after it finally fled the country.

      --
      @de_machina
    39. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by demachina · · Score: 1

      This thread started when an AC claimed the U.S. saved "Europe" twice. The discussion had nothing at all to do with the Pacific and North Africa was a peripheral event which did divert German resources from the Eastern front, but it was a side show.

      The Soviet Union's military casualties were nearly 11 million and somewhat more than that civilian.

      I'm not saying the U.S. didn't make a significant contribution to the victory Europe but the U.S. didn't "save" Europe from Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union did and at an enormous cost. The cost to the U.S. was trivial in comparison.

      --
      @de_machina
    40. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by ProfBooty · · Score: 1

      You forgot the pacific theatre. The russians just stepped in there at the last days of the war.

      --
      Bring back the old version of slashdot.
    41. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are so right on. But this raises the question whetger Stalin was better than Hitler.

      Call a Godwin if you like. But I'm so tired of Americans triggering this question over and over again...

    42. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nitpick:

      The Soviets (wisely) decided not to engage in a manned moon landing "race"

      To be fair, initially the Soviets gave it a go, until the death of Korolev in January 1966.

      But otherwise you are spot on all counts.

    43. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by Krater76 · · Score: 2
      You are insane. That gets modded as informative? More like revisionist bull shit is more like it.

      The only thing the U.S. saved Europe from in World War II was being completely overrun by our ally at the time, the Soviet Union.

      The Soviet Union defeated Nazi Germany at Stalingrad and Kursk in 1942-1943 when the U.S. was barely even engaged in Europe. Germany's defeat was a foregone conclusion by the time the U.S. landed at Normandy in 1944.

      England was done, they weren't pushing the front from the West. There may have been pressure from Russia to the East but without the invasion of Normandy and the threat from the West, Germany could have easily sustained it's control over the entirety Europe. Without the pressure from the South in Italy, Mussolini could've held his ground as well. Is Russia going to be able to free even Poland? Not a chance without an invasion from the West.

      Meanwhile, the US was fighting tooth and nail against Japan, preventing them from taking over the entire Western Pacific Rim, from New Zealand to China. You're welcome.

      The U.S. helped win the war certainly but it simply wasn't the decisive force the Soviet Union was or that you are claiming.

      Its true the U.S. helped turn the tide against Germany in World War I, but that was simply due to a huge infusion of fresh troops and supplies in to a war where all the incumbent armies and nations were spent. There wasn't anything exceptional about the U.S. troops, any infusion of a million fresh troops from anywhere would have had the same effect.

      Fresh troops? You are making it seem like the US hadn't been fighting for 3+ years already, like we were just sitting on our hands with infinite resources ready to go, just coming in for garbage time. We were the only country who fought in every front of WW2 - Europe, Africa, the Pacific. Russia defended one front. It might've been 2 at one point but, oh yeah, the US took care of Japan for them.

      All things considered, you proved the grandparents point by flaunting how self infatuated and self inflating American's can be. The grandparent is correct, the Vietnamese were probably the most succesful military in the 20th century, and I would add the Afghans as a close second, because they have defeated every vastly superior force they've faced including the Soviet Union and the U.S.

      It really depends how you define success. If you want to call losing multiple generations of a population to an infinitely superior opponent, sure. To be fair, the Afghans were getting their ass kicked by the Soviets until the US started supplying them with arms. Obviously Vietnam would have to turned out differently without Soviet and Chinese supplying the Vietcong.

      Take your blatant anti-Americanism out of it and look at history. Without American intervention does France get freed from Germany? (No.) Does Italy get freed from fascism? (No.) Does Russia have the ability to defeat a single-fronted German army? (No.) Does almost the entirety of SE Asia get freed from the control of Japan? (No.)

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    44. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There may have been pressure from Russia to the East but without the invasion of Normandy and the threat from the West, Germany could have easily sustained it's control over the entirety Europe.

      Have a look at this map showing in yellow and pink the Soviet advances on the Eastern front before D-day. So much for your "sustaining control over the entirety of Europe".

      Does Russia have the ability to defeat a single-fronted German army?

      They did. This a historical fact. Read up on Stalingrad and Kursk.

      Better yet, no need to trust them damn foreigners. You can read the analysis by American generals at the time urging the administration to open the Western front least the Russians take all of Europe.

      Take your blatant anti-Americanism out of it and look at history.

      Which again proves the OP point. One cannot challenge the--at very least contentious and most likely false--claim of supremacy of the USA forces without being accused of being anti-patriotic.

      Thanks, your job here is done.

    45. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Money.

      Makes you wonder where we'd be if Kennedy and Johnson hadn't gotten us into Vietnam and all the money that cost.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    46. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by Nimey · · Score: 1

      How do you think your precious Soviet Union would have done if the western allies (the US and UK) hadn't kept it supplied with war materiel, hadn't fought the Battle of the Atlantic, had left it entirely to Hitler's tender mercies?

      Blind adherence to nationalism cuts both ways, pal.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    47. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And don't forget the 200-odd million metric tons of supplies the U.S. and Great Britain sent into Russia (and countless more that was lost by at sea to U-Boat operations, including some of the most technologically sophisticated fighter planes and tanks, from the very moment the tanks rolled out of Brest. The USSR, in its entire history, never gave the U.S. anything.

    48. Re:NASA is the world leader in what? by DaVince21 · · Score: 1

      You're not doing much to sound convincing there, buddy.

      --
      I am not devoid of humor.
  7. confined spaces by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    >like one's ability to work in small, confined spaces for hours on end.

    Does a computer desk surrounded by a clutter of coke cans and stacks of pizza boxes count? I guarantee its more confined than your roomy shuttle!

  8. Height discrimination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    That means no one under 5 foot 2 inches or over 6 foot 3 inches

    Discrimination! I'm in the "best of the best", but at 6'7" excluded by this requirement. Dwarves may have legislation banning unreasonable discrimination against them, but us giants are people too!

  9. Small Print by jaylen · · Score: 5, Funny

    Small print at the bottom of the job advertisement -

    'Astronaut must show ability to hold out right-hand with thumb up, and know enough Russian to 'ask for a lift.'

    1. Re:Small Print by gman003 · · Score: 2

      know enough Russian to 'ask for a lift.'

      "Odin jezda na kosmose, pozalujsta. Spasibo."

      (I'm probably massacring that, and await the thousand irate Slavic Slashdotters bickering over my declensions)

    2. Re:Small Print by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Irate slavik slashdotter #1:
      Google translate does a much better job: one trip to outer space please, thank you

  10. GATTACA by mhajicek · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You'd just about have to be genetically engineered to make those requirements.

    1. Re:GATTACA by Wabbit+Wabbit · · Score: 1

      Came here to post this as well. And to think my mod points expired yesterday. Sorry I couldn't mod you up.

      --
      Nothing is inexplicable; only unexplained -Tom Baker, Doctor Who
    2. Re:GATTACA by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      I think the same thing

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    3. Re:GATTACA by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      No, not really. Unless LASIK disqualifies, having natural 20/20 vision and a hight requirement will be the most likely limiting generic factors. Other then that, almost any one Slashdot can be physically fit and well educated enough to get a bachelors of science degree. All you need is a driven personality to make that happen. For example, a childhood dream you really want to turn into reality.

      As for myself? I don't have the required degree and my 20/20 is starting to fade as I get older. So count me out. I'm sure there are plenty of ex-military members that would disproportionally qualify over any random civilian. Physical fitness, endurance, and calm collective psyche are all qualities NASA is looking for. Again, most ex-military fit the bill perfectly.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    4. Re:GATTACA by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      that wouldn't be enough.

      "Certain degrees are immediate disqualifiers, including nursing, social sciences, aviation, exercise physiology, technology, and some psychology degrees, too. The job listing mandates '1,000 hours pilot-in-command time in jet aircraft' ".

      (actually the slashdot summary is wrong, those degrees don't disqualify you, they just won't help you).

      basically they're looking for military pilots with doctoral degrees in some field of technology.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    5. Re:GATTACA by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

      I'm particularly annoyed about the height cutoff.

      I'd think that a really stocky athlete guy at 6'5 would be able to contribute something in leverage that would prove valuable somewhere.

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    6. Re:GATTACA by pknoll · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but he wouldn't fit into an EVA suit, which I think is the main driver behind the height requirement.

    7. Re:GATTACA by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      Couldn't fit in the space suit (could have one made to fit), wouldn't fit well through hatches, wouldn't fit well in launch seat with restraints, and his bulk would get in other people's way. He would be more difficult for others to lift and move in an emergency situation. His weight would also add to fuel cost and/or cut payload capacity a bit, and his supply requirements (food, water, air) would be greater.

    8. Re:GATTACA by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Please... the vast majority of people meet the height requirements - too short or two tall falls out of design decisions for the hardware the people need to fit through. The rest is physical condition which the qualified candidates will put a lot of time into meeting. Sure there will be people who are otherwise qualified but too short or too tall or vision that can't be corrected through surgery and that is all unfortunate, but to claim you need genetically engineered people when the physical requirements *could* be met by the vast majority of the population (if they'd put down their cheetos and go for a run....) is simply ridiculous.

      Education and experience is a different story... You know how just about every kid wanted to be an astronaut? Well the ones that were serious about it would meet these prerequisites. They'd have become military or commercial pilots, moved on as a test pilot, gotten an engineering background. Fact is, just about anybody *could* have been an astronaut had they really set their minds to it early on and stuck with it. It's hard work and very few people are willing to put forth the effort. If you don't meet those requirements... well you, like me, seem to have picked a different life for yourself.

      --
      +1 Disagree
  11. applicants by Espectr0 · · Score: 4, Funny

    20/20 vision? Incredible shape? This is slashdot, that means none of us qualify.

    1. Re:applicants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      20/20 vision? That keeps out most of the Asian applicants. Able to swim? - Indians and Muslims need not apply either.

    2. Re:applicants by strength_of_10_men · · Score: 1
      I don't know...

      like one's ability to work in small, confined spaces for hours on end

      Do cubicles or basements count?

    3. Re:applicants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure some of us are "an incredible shape", just not the way they mean ;-)

    4. Re:applicants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A perfect sphere is an incredible shape for a human body. I'll go ahead and apply.

    5. Re:applicants by ark1 · · Score: 1

      20/20 vision? Incredible shape? This is slashdot, that means none of us qualify.

      TFA is not entirely accurate. If you look at the actual job posting, they say "Must be correctable to 20/20". This means you can wear glasses or have an eye surgery to meet 20/20.

    6. Re:applicants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno. I wouldn't say that I am in 'incredible shape', but the shape I am in is rather unbelieveable.

  12. I just read this ad... by Tastecicles · · Score: 2

    "Career-driven individuals wanted for out of this world opportunity. Stock options in lieu of salary, this is not a pyramid scheme"

    Weren't NASA headhunters once? Did they not have a bottomless pit for a budget? Now they have to appeal to the Geek community for talent that's otherwise wasted in gainful productive employment?

    Incidentally, I won't be applying, since I don't fit the physical profile (I'm 6 foot 8). Guess I'll have to wait until space travel (or at least LEO) is in financial reach of the Everyman.

    --
    Operation Guillotine is in effect.
  13. Job requirement addendum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    * The excessively flatulent need not apply.

    1. Re:Job requirement addendum by EdIII · · Score: 1

      * The excessively flatulent need not apply.

      Define "excessively".

      Volume?
      Frequency?
      Decibels?

    2. Re:Job requirement addendum by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      * The excessively flatulent need not apply.

      Define "excessively".

      Volume?
      Frequency?
      Decibels?

      Parts Per Million

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
  14. 20/20 Vision? by camperdave · · Score: 4, Informative

    20/20 vision? Like Daniel Burbank, Steve Frick, or Don Pettit

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:20/20 Vision? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and twenty/twenty aint that great.

    2. Re:20/20 Vision? by manoweb · · Score: 1

      Have you read the actual job application? "Distant and near visual acuity: Must be correctable to 20/20, each eye"

    3. Re:20/20 Vision? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don Pettit? That's Steve Jobs reincarnated.

    4. Re:20/20 Vision? by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Distant and near visual acuity: Must be correctable to 20/20, each eye

      It only eliminates people with conditions that PREVENT them from seeing 20/20 WITH correction.

      So your coke-bottle glasses are just fine, as long as you can see 20/20 while wearing them.

    5. Re:20/20 Vision? by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      FYI

      To: Mission Specialist Marc Garneau

      Question: Can an astronaut wear contacts in space? Would an individual qualify to be an astronaut without 20/20 vision?

      Garneau: The answer is yes, you can wear contacts in space. Some astronauts do wear them. And to become an astronaut - if you're going to become a pilot astronaut - you have to have better than 20 over 70 vision distance, and it has to be correctable to 20/20. If you want to become a mission specialist - the other kind of astronaut - your vision requirements are 20 over 200, once again correctable to 20/20. So you don't have to have perfect vision to become an astronaut.

      Yes, never trust the HR department for the official requirements to a job description. Their only job is to weed out applicants.

      And to all the Tom Cruz-sized little people out there, don't get discouraged -- get yourself some platform shoes and practice drinking Vodka. With a smaller body, you'll be expected to have a higher tolerance for hard liquor. That's really the only requirement of the Russians, having someone they can socialize with, without having to have clean the air filters and having to smell somebody else's vomit until the mission is over.

  15. i would *like* to be an astronaut... by wierd_w · · Score: 2

    But I know flat out that I would never make the cut.

    Over the past year, I have grown sideways considerably.
    I also have rather pronounced astigmatism, and a mitralvalve prolapse, on top of carpel tunnel and occult gangaleon cysts in my wrists.

    I would NEVER get passed the physical.

    That said, I would have no trouble with the psychological aspects. I actually *like* confined spaces, as long as the airflow is good. Working with others could be a problem, but the hiring reqs would ensure that stupid people are disqualified, so that would be ok. If I have to explain what the words "heuristic" and "obfuscate" mean, I won't be able to work effectively with the team. Effective communication is essential for that. If they are competent, have more than a 500 word vocabulary, and are professional it is all good.

    Eventually though, NASA and ESA are going to have to send ordinary people up, if they ever intend to do any kind of space based manufacturing, or permanent space based habitats. People aren't going to like jumping through insane hurdles, just to be a space janitor. Best just to hire a regular janitor that meets some core competencies so he doesn't blow himself out an airlock or get water into an instrument panel.

    While being fit is important for space vocations, I suspect most of the fitness requirements center around looking sexy for TV. The hiring guidelines for astronauts in the US and Russia were created during the biggest PR penis waving contest of the last century, and being sexy for cameras was very important for political reasons. I suspect there is a very large amount of beaurocratic inertia on those guidelines, and that many of the physical fitness reqs are not actually necessary for the job, but have been retained because being too picky is less troublesome than getting new guidelines through regulatory approval.

    1. Re:i would *like* to be an astronaut... by darth+dickinson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While being fit is important for space vocations, I suspect most of the fitness requirements center around looking sexy for TV. The hiring guidelines for astronauts in the US and Russia were created during the biggest PR penis waving contest of the last century, and being sexy for cameras was very important for political reasons. I suspect there is a very large amount of beaurocratic inertia on those guidelines, and that many of the physical fitness reqs are not actually necessary for the job, but have been retained because being too picky is less troublesome than getting new guidelines through regulatory approval.

      Have you ever tried to breathe while your extra 40 pounds of belly fat are pressing against your diaphragm at 4 Gs? Heck, the centrifuge-type ride at the US Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville had me struggling to breathe, and I'm sure it doesn't pull nearly that many Gs.

    2. Re:i would *like* to be an astronaut... by spire3661 · · Score: 2

      "While being fit is important for space vocations, I suspect most of the fitness requirements center around looking sexy for TV."

      For a supposedly smart person you are extremely ignorant of the physical rigors of high velocity travel.

      --
      Good-bye
    3. Re:i would *like* to be an astronaut... by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      I suspect most of the fitness requirements center around looking sexy for TV

      And minor issues like surviving the launch, not having your muscles and bones deteriorate too much due to micro gravity, surviving re-enrty after said deterioration...

      Having to send up 3 janitors because the first two died is not very economical, nor is paying for excess fuel because the personnel ate too many pies.

    4. Re:i would *like* to be an astronaut... by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      If it is anything like breathing under 6ft of water through a hose, I can do it. *shrug*

    5. Re:i would *like* to be an astronaut... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Similar specifications exist for any remote work. You also will not get assigned to a base to overwinter in Antarctica if you are not demonstrably healthy. The last thing a space mission wants to deal with is a serious medical problem. How do you know people are actually healthy? You push them physically to see what happens. On top of the medical aspects, you want people who have the physical and mental stamina to be efficient and to tolerate problems -- like long hours of strenuous work and emergency conditions that might require strength, intelligence, little sleep, and possibly surviving in low oxygen environments (re: Apollo 13).

      Your hypothetical, ordinary space janitor could cost a LOT of money if he or she had to be sent back to Earth due to an unexpected medical issue. They'll waste a lot of expensive resources if they don't do their job efficiently. Unless and until space travel becomes as cheap and easy as flying a commercial airline there are always going to be stringent health requirements. The suggestion it is done mainly for "looking sexy for TV" is ridiculous. It's for practical reasons of safety, money, and increasing the odds of completing the mission successfully even in potentially dangerous situations.

      In other words: shape up or dream on.

    6. Re:i would *like* to be an astronaut... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have a problem with stupid people, I'm going to hazard a guess that you like to label people stupid based on them doing something stupid. Everyone does something stupid occasionally, in which case you won't be OK on the working with people part.

    7. Re:i would *like* to be an astronaut... by retchdog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      nonsense! i've been traveling at about 66,000mph for decades. it isn't that hard.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    8. Re:i would *like* to be an astronaut... by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      The implication was not that 250lb tubs of lard should be accepted. The implication was that you don't have to be a 170lb addonas with washboard abs, and a pretty smile.

      There are people with a "heavy" build that are perfectly healthy and fit. The physical characterisitics sheet disqualifies such people. (My dad had such an endomorphic build. The police dept he worked for introduced rules to combat police obesity, which enforced BMI requirements. Ended up lethargic and emaciated bones to reach the required BMI for his height because he really does have heavy musculature and bones. Ended up getting a medical exemption with a doctor's order. His "healthy and fit" weight was right at 200lbs for a 5'6" man. He would never meet russian body requirements, even in tiptop shape. I understand the "million dollars per kilogram" fuel requirement. I also realize that those requirements coincide nicely with "idealized" perceptions of attractiveness. I have yet to see a truly butt ugly astronaut.)

      Then you have the eyesight requirement. Many astronauts in current service have nowhere near 20/20. Unless you are myopic as hell, or have insane astigmatism like I do, the 20/20 req is madness, since you won't keep that if you stay in space anyway. Most astronauts forgo eyetests after missions for this very reason, yet they still seem able to do their jobs just fine.

    9. Re:i would *like* to be an astronaut... by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      No, I label people stupid when they repeatedly do the same stupid things, and actively refuse education and correction.

      People who revel in their ignorance, refuse to better themselves when given every possible opportunity, and fail at basic logic and show no inclination to improve themselves are people I consider stupid.

      As such your assumption is wrong. Everyone does make mistakes, and I am no exception. Refusal to grow, improve, and learn on the other hand, is the hallmark of being stupid.

    10. Re:i would *like* to be an astronaut... by arobadog · · Score: 1

      I doubt 6ft (1/5 ATM) would be enough to duplicate the experience of 4 Gs, maybe 4 ATMs of pressure would be closer. The air pressure at sea level is one atmosphere of pressure (1 ATM). Pressure increases at the rate of 1 ATM every 33 feet of water depth. This would be equivalent to someone with a PADI Advanced Open Water certification, maybe even with the Deep Water add on.

      --
      ...moving very slowly and winning footraces with smug satisfaction.
    11. Re:i would *like* to be an astronaut... by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      You mean high delta-v travel. Not high velocity travel. When not accellerating or decellerating, there would be no noteworthy g-stresses on the body.

      This is actually part of the problem with bone and muscle deterioration. Freefall induced microgravity actually *reduces* riggors on the body which promote healthy muscle and bone tissue. It is actually the pressure against bones and muscles caused by exerting them in a gravity well which keeps bones dense. A few studies with genetically bone atrophied mice showed that increasing ambient stresses against their bones rebuilt bone mass. (They used a vibrating plate to introduce additional skeletal shock forces.)
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2929696/

      Most of these degeneration effects could be effectively eliminated with proper habitat construction. This means that they are much less of an issue if properly addressed.

    12. Re:i would *like* to be an astronaut... by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      I specifically mentioned through a hose. As in, unpressurized.

      A padi certified diver at 5atm uses compressed trimix. His lungs would never be able to exert sufficient pull to draw breath through an unpressurised hose at that depth. It would require strength to displace several hundred pounds of pressure per square inch. The human body is physically incapable of that. Deep water divers don't have that problem, because they use compressed gas.

      The astronaut at 5Gs total effective body mass would be around 850lbs, yes. His chest would only be about 200lbs. To effectively simulate, stack 4 50lb dogfood bags on your chest while laying down. I can do that easily. The real problem with high delta-v is that your blood pressure has to increase 5x what it is at rest to avoid anoxia. If you have heart trouble of any kind, that is what kills you.

    13. Re:i would *like* to be an astronaut... by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      Assuming said "joe ordinary" janitor does not weigh 250lbs, and does not have high bloodpressure, he would not "die on takeoff".

      As for the deterioration, I think you could benefit from re-reading my post, and doing some research. I specifically said long term habitation. A long term habitat would actively take measures to prevent such deterioration. Recent studies in anamal models shows that microtrauma to skeletal and muscle tissues are what stave off atrophy. See for instance, this study from 07.

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2929696/

      A properly constructed habitat that simulates 1G effective resistance would stave off all musle and bone deterioration that was not caused by increased ambient radiation. Any long term habitat would have to take this radiation exosure into consideration as well, and would have to actively shield against it to maintain acceptable dosage levels.

      Most of the issues with deterioration could be addressed with current space habitats with an inflatable pressure suit with a built in vibrator.

      Space is not some magical lifeforce depleting environment. The current problems with deteriorating astronaut health comes from designing habitats for short term occupation, due to budget issues. Not because space is just so wicked on humans.

    14. Re:i would *like* to be an astronaut... by RadioTV · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I hold a PADI rescue diver certification and have made several dives to 95+ feet. I have never used trimix. 5 ATM is 4 ATM of water pressure and 1 ATM of air. You add 1 ATM for every 33 feet so 4 ATM of water is 132 feet - the limit for recreational diving. If you want to go deeper or you want to stay down there for more than a few minutes you have to get in to technical diving and then you can learn to use trimix. Anyone with an advanced certification and a deep specialty can get to 5 ATM of pressure.

      Also, 1 ATM is 14.7 PSI. So 5 ATM is 73.5 PSI. Still enough to crush you and to keep you from breathing through an unpressurized hose, but not hundreds of pounds per square inch.

      --
      I have great faith in fools - self confidence my friends call it. - Edgar Allan Poe
    15. Re:i would *like* to be an astronaut... by biovoid · · Score: 1

      You mean high delta-v travel. Not high velocity travel.

      How exactly are you going achieve the high velocity without accelerating?

    16. Re:i would *like* to be an astronaut... by Tejas+Geek · · Score: 1

      You mean high delta-v travel. Not high velocity travel.

      How exactly are you going achieve the high velocity without accelerating?

      You can get to high V using low delta-V, it just takes longer. Anybody can deal with high-V, low delta-V. Not everyone can be quasi-functional at 5 Gs.

    17. Re:i would *like* to be an astronaut... by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      Velocity does not imply accelleration. Accelleration does imply velocity.

      Example: you are sitting in your chair. You are not experiencing accelleration. You are however, traveling at very high velocity. The earth is rotating, is orbiting the sun, and the sun is in turn orbiting galactic center. You are moving at fantastic velocities. You do not percieve any G-forces, because you are not experiencing delta-v.

      This is why the above post is modded informative.

      Delta-v is a function which measures CHANGE of velocity. Continual application of very tiny delta-v (as long as you aren't fighting a gravity well) over sufficient time will result in very very high linear velocities, with minimal g-force cost.

      The problem is leaving the earth-s gravity well. You have to overcome the effective pull of gravity. This means at least 2G inertial force on the occupants of the vessel, using a rocket. In addition, you have to deal with atmospheric drag and other factors. This bumps things up to 3 or 4Gs.

      As I pointed out in another post, "breathing" is not a problem unless you are obeise. The problem is anoxia from poor blood flow, because the blood in your arteries becomes 4X heavier. Your blood pressure spikes, and if you have heart trouble or hypertension, you can have a heart attack, an embolism, or a stroke. I have a mitral valve prolapse.

      Essentially, when my blood pressure rises, the mitral valve in my heart malfunctions, causing arythmia and a loss of positive blood flow, which causes dizziness and fainting. As a result I cannot be an astronaut.

      It might be possible to overcome if I use a pressurized G-suit. However, unless I was super splendiferously important to the mission, this solution would not be explored due to increased launch weight, and only limited effectiveness.

      Most people don't have congenital heart defects like mine though.

    18. Re:i would *like* to be an astronaut... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      "While being fit is important for space vocations, I suspect most of the fitness requirements center around looking sexy for TV."

      For a supposedly smart person you are extremely ignorant of the physical rigors of high velocity travel.

      But, he's also right that you need to look good for promotional purposes.

    19. Re:i would *like* to be an astronaut... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were talking about the rigors of sitting in a rocket escaping the earth's gravity. Good luck doing that with low delta-V, pedant.

    20. Re:i would *like* to be an astronaut... by tqk · · Score: 1

      I would NEVER get passed the physical.

      You would never get past the language exam.

      [Workin' on the .sig ... gimme a minute ...]

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    21. Re:i would *like* to be an astronaut... by subreality · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Space Academy survivor here - It pulls 3 Gs.

      I'm pretty far off to one end of the nerd-jock spectrum. I had no problems breathing, but it was interesting being barely able to lift my own arms: I couldn't lift them directly from my sides and had to increase leverage by bending them at the elbow and then pushing like a bench press.

      While I don't think they need top-notch athletes, I can definitely say that physical fitness in the top few percentiles is a reasonable requirement for the job. There's no way I could reach up to punch an abort button in less than a second if it was necessary during launch.

    22. Re:i would *like* to be an astronaut... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Eventually though, NASA and ESA are going to have to send ordinary people up, if they ever intend to do any kind of space based manufacturing, or permanent space based habitats. People aren't going to like jumping through insane hurdles, just to be a space janitor. Best just to hire a regular janitor that meets some core competencies so he doesn't blow himself out an airlock or get water into an instrument panel.

      Sorry to disappoint, but I find that unlikely. Here in Norway there's many thousands of people working offshore on oil fields and they all have to follow considerably more stringent health conditions than others. There are requirements for sight, hearing, no cardiovascular diseases, no brain dysfunctions like epilepsy, no psychological conditions, no diabetes, no substance abuse, good lung functions, full mobility, no medication that make rescue difficult like sedatives, no pregnancies over 28 weeks, there are weight limits - granted a rather generous 120 kg - and so on. And people are jumping to work offshore because it pays well. Even if you're just looking for a space janitor you can get one in perfect health at a relatively minor premium. And as long as there's good safety reasons for it, they'll get permission to exclude everyone else. The space industry would have to get really far before you'll be able to make any kind of anti-discrimination argument to let everyone and their dog up there.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    23. Re:i would *like* to be an astronaut... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Velocity in a rocket escaping the earth's gravity does imply acceleration. High delta-V acceleration to be precise. You are so focused on being correct on minute and irrelevant points of argument that you have lost sight of the original conversation. If you focused less on being correct all the time and assuming others aren't as intelligent as you, perhaps you wouldn't be in the situation you are now.

    24. Re:i would *like* to be an astronaut... by causality · · Score: 1

      No, I label people stupid when they repeatedly do the same stupid things, and actively refuse education and correction.

      People who revel in their ignorance, refuse to better themselves when given every possible opportunity, and fail at basic logic and show no inclination to improve themselves are people I consider stupid.

      As such your assumption is wrong. Everyone does make mistakes, and I am no exception. Refusal to grow, improve, and learn on the other hand, is the hallmark of being stupid.

      Amen to that. The total blindness and lack of self-awareness and introspection are what I cannot relate to myself.

      It's some kind of ego issue. It's a combination of "I'm a king and you don't question the king" and "it's okay to be helpless and never try to identify and solve my own problems because as king I should have people for that". The second aspect is well-known to anyone who has ever worked a tech support line and heard from literate adults who need handholding to follow the most basic instructions already available to them.

      They rarely ever actually say they are kings and it may or may not be a thought in their minds but in their hearts they think so and act accordingly. That's why they don't treat themselves as flawed beings who are here to learn and grow and overcome personal shortcomings. They treat themselves like that's a lot of unnecessary work they can get away with not performing.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    25. Re:i would *like* to be an astronaut... by jcgam69 · · Score: 1

      This is exactly correct. I've tried breathing under only 2-3 feet of water in a shallow pool through an open hose and it is physically impossible, as counter intuitive as that may seem.

    26. Re:i would *like* to be an astronaut... by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      ...fitting through a hatch might be of greater importance

      --
      +1 Disagree
  16. Disqualifiers...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Certain degrees are immediate disqualifiers".... TFA says that those degrees aren't qualifiers, not that they are disqualifiers. I'm sure if you had a degree in nursing AND a degree in a qualifying field, you wouldn't be disqualified...

  17. Let me sum it up for 99.99% of you... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Short answer: no.

    Longer answer:

    A) are you a military pilot with thousands of hours in high-performance jets? If not, forget anything resembling a "pilot" seat.

    B) do you regularly publish world-class scientific papers, travel the world on exotic geology expeditions, and run highly successful educational programs all across the world? Or, any three or four similar accomplishments, before age 25... If not, you're not competitive in the "outstanding scientist" category.

    C) are you a talented engineer or other professional? If so, you're more valuable on the ground than in front of the world television spotlight.

    Sorry to be cynical, when I was 6 years old (1973) "astronaut" was a valid answer to the "what do you want to be when you grow up?" question. In 1973, space travel seemed like it was "going places," but, so far, it hasn't. You would have been much more realistic if you aspired to be a NFL quarterback or highly recognized movie star starting at age 6 in 1973.

    Let's hope things are better than they seem for the future of space travel, now nearly 40 years later.

    1. Re:Let me sum it up for 99.99% of you... by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      B) do you regularly publish world-class scientific papers, travel the world on exotic geology expeditions

      Geology is not a real science

    2. Re:Let me sum it up for 99.99% of you... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Uhuh, sure. You just keep on saying that... Now excuse me while I help Exxon, BP, and others continue to search for natural resources with dowsing rods. -sarcasm

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    3. Re:Let me sum it up for 99.99% of you... by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      I didn't say it, Chuck Lorre did. I just think its funny.

    4. Re:Let me sum it up for 99.99% of you... by turing_m · · Score: 1

      I would think that a lot of people have a better chance of being astronauts than Hollywood A-Listers, for example. The pool of people wanting to be in the film industry is so much larger. How many people really want to be astronauts? Certainly less than most of the state of California and all those enrolled in film schools, acting classes and the like.

      --
      If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
    5. Re:Let me sum it up for 99.99% of you... by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

      Duh, of course geology isn't a real science. It's just a load of horsecrap.

      A real scientist studies geonomy.

    6. Re:Let me sum it up for 99.99% of you... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      A) are you a military pilot with thousands of hours in high-performance jets? If not, forget anything resembling a "pilot" seat.

      In my opinion, NASA shouldn't have this stupid fixation on pilots. They should go check out nuclear submariners, those bunch are used to spending _months_ (not just hours) in a confined tube, where they'd die if something goes wrong. I'm sure at least some of them would be physically fit enough. I'm sure you'd be more likely to find ones that are mentally very stable from those who have had many "tours of duty". NASA have been wasting money doing those "long term in space" simulations to see if people can cope mentally. Maybe fewer air force pilots can cope, but submariners = been there done that.

      Secondly NASA seems to have another stupid fixation on going to Mars. They should first build a space station with radiation shielding, and artificial gravity - whether with tethers and counterweights or something else. Going to Mars without that is like a baby trying to jump before being able to stand or walk.

      Lastly, if they still have problems stuff right, here's another way to improve things with space travel:

      Start a reality TV show called "Vote Them Off The Planet". Then you have the candidates (George Bush, Obama, Sarah Palin, Random Celebrity, Random Politician ) etc.

      Then you have the categories: One Way, Return.

      Those that win the One Way, can choose to:
      a) Not go.
      b) Go one way (not come back)
      c) Pay for the return trip, and go.

      Those that win the Return, can choose to:
      a) Not go.
      b) Go one way.
      c) Go "Return".

      --
    7. Re:Let me sum it up for 99.99% of you... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      A) are you a military pilot with thousands of hours in high-performance jets? If not, forget anything resembling a "pilot" seat.

      In my opinion, NASA shouldn't have this stupid fixation on pilots.

      Agree, totally. However, I happen to know a company that was bidding on UAS (unmanned) patrol of the launch area at Kennedy, they put together a good proposal with a tremendous efficacy for expenditure ratio compared to manned aerial patrols (in other words, take just one manned plane out of the sky pre-launch and have a bunch of drones up for the same money, get better coverage). The proposal was killed, outright, shot in the back of the head by a high level admin who stated categorically "we do manned missions here, we are not interested in any kind of unmanned systems."

      Kind of like homophobia, but against robots. And, most of what Kennedy launches are, in fact, robots.

    8. Re:Let me sum it up for 99.99% of you... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      With people like that at the upper layers, good luck getting much innovation and progress out of NASA.

      People shouldn't mourn too much if NASA goes away, it's already mostly gone if you compare it to the Apollo days. Too much of the stuff they're doing and planning are just re-runs with better technology. Too many of the high levels are merely Priests maintaining Traditions rather than Prophets bringing the Future.

      --
  18. I was under the impression that..... by InspectorGadget1964 · · Score: 1

    Since astronauts are supposed to go to space, does that mean that NASA is going to get some budget for rockets? Or are they going to dust the old Appollo and Gemini leftovers?

  19. To ride on a Russian rocket? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Ohhhh, PLEASE, Mr Putin... can we ride on your spaceships? World leader? Gag a maggot. We used to be but lost our national will. We became obsessed with arts and trinkets, as Londo Mollari would say, and yes, we've become a tourist attraction. (Posting as AC so I can use my mod points)

    1. Re:To ride on a Russian rocket? by Cosgrach · · Score: 1

      If I had mod points, you would get them.

      --
      Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
  20. Sadly not by Nimey · · Score: 1

    I doubt they'd take asthmatics, myopics, or those without binocular vision, much as I'd love to.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
  21. Physical requirements... by benjamindees · · Score: 1

    Speaking as someone who needs to hit the gym in 26 minutes, I have to wonder whether the physical requirements are somewhat counter-productive. If you just want to strap a person to a rocket and send them into space for a few hours, it might make sense to require that they be in excellent physical condition. But historically, I don't think most colonists and explorers have been exactly body builders. I mean, just think about it for a second. Most of the people who travel long distances for a living are in downright terrible shape. It takes a lot of infrastructure to maintain a person in top physical condition. Cramming them into a tiny capsule where they can barely move for long periods is not exactly the ideal environment. If the goal is to send humans into space, why would we only choose those with the highest support infrastructure requirements?

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    1. Re:Physical requirements... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From wikipedia:

      Medical data from astronauts in low earth orbits for long periods, dating back to the 1970s, show several adverse effects of a microgravity environment: loss of bone density, decreased muscle strength and endurance, postural instability, and reductions in aerobic capacity. Over time these deconditioning effects can impair astronauts’ performance or increase their risk of injury.

      Speaking as someone who sometimes has trouble climbing the basement stairs in the morning, muscle atrophy would probably get me killed five days into the mission if they ever sent me up there.

    2. Re:Physical requirements... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to wikipedia, NASA has estimated the cost of each shuttle mission at $450 million (this is a bit more than their original estimate of $10 million....). Do the math, that works out to about $60 million per astronaut. For that money, the scouting of prospects better be at least as thorough as the preparations made by MLB and NFL teams for their annual player drafts. "Yeah he was out of shape, but he was excited about space travel and had a great sense of humor" would not have gone over well as a post-mission explanation of how a failed astronaut ended up in space.

    3. Re:Physical requirements... by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      If you cram someone in a tiny capsule for long periods of time, it stands to reason the ones who were in better shape to begin with will come out in better shape. Not only that, fatties weigh more than non-fatties. Weight = Fuel = $$$

    4. Re:Physical requirements... by kylemonger · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but if they hired you today, you're not going into space tomorrow. You're at the back of line, leaving plenty of time get into shape. Like most want ads, this one was written by someone at a desk, someone with an ass every bit as wide as yours, who is relying on folklore and inertia as much as actual experience in crafting the requirements.

    5. Re:Physical requirements... by zill · · Score: 1

      You're at the back of line, leaving plenty of time get into shape.

      But if they hired someone already in shape, that person would have plenty of time to get into even better shape.

    6. Re:Physical requirements... by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      and you can't fire someone because they failed to lose weight, thats got to be some politically correct human rights bollocks

  22. About that height... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no one under 5 foot 2 inches or over 6 foot 3 inches

    Most Soviet armor vehicles had a 5 ft 4 in crew height limit in order to minimize crew space requirements. Would a similar requirement make sense for astronauts?

  23. I came here for the homer simpson jokes..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How disappointing....

  24. Close... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Close. I was totally on board until the 'frequent travel' part.

  25. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    All that, and they still allow you in if you believe in god.

    1. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could be worse... they could be focused on putting vocal minorities with severe inferiority complexes up there. *shudders*

  26. But..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if I bring my own inanimate carbon rod?

  27. lasik and glasses / contacts are ok by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    lasik and glasses / contacts are ok

  28. Frequent Travel?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More like "Infrequent, but long-distance, high-speed travel - must not be prone to getting car-sick or sea-sick".

  29. My article didn't have enough right stuff by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    When I submitted this story way back when: http://slashdot.org/submission/1856686/nasa-now-seeking-candidates-for-astronaut-posistio

    Now ain't that ironic? So I guess I am really at the bottom of the astronaut list . . .

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:My article didn't have enough right stuff by Leebert · · Score: 1

      That's ok, if yours had been posted it would have been a trip. (as in, triple)

      http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/11/15/1635240/nows-your-chance-to-apply-as-an-astronaut

  30. Ridiculous.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry, but immediately disqualifying people for the degrees "nursing, social sciences, aviation, exercise physiology, technology, and some psychology degrees" is ridiculous.

    Have you ever heard of somebody who was good at math, science, etc. but didn't have that as a degree? Maybe they were a genius and decided to study OTHER subjects in school, because they didn't need to study ONLY math or science. Or maybe they have a multitude of experience that includes STEM but their degree only says BA liberal arts? Or maybe they don't even HAVE a degree but are a talented engineer who can fix anything?!

    Really, I bet they have an algorithm, weed out "non-perfect" keyword matching people, and only then consider resumes, just like every other automated job application process.

    I may be bitter about having a liberal arts degree myself (and being extremely technical otherwise), and no chance in hell in getting into the astronaut program, but what happened to all the bullsh*t about the value of transdisciplinary knowledge? How are we going to succeed in space when the only people we send up there are STEM experts? Where is the balance?

    A lot more people (with a lot wider diversity) need to have a shot at making it into space (and we need more rides into space) for us to become a permanently space-faring and space-surviving species. I'm sorry, it's that simple.

    STEM is great, don't get me wrong - and it is extremely necessary in this field. But don't count everyone else out because they don't have a "technical" degree on paper.

    1. Re:Ridiculous.. by masternerdguy · · Score: 1

      You can be an astronaut and be artistic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SySZdvsFYt4

      --
      To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
    2. Re:Ridiculous.. by retchdog · · Score: 2

      no, it's just a moronic summary. those degrees don't qualify, but neither do they disqualify you. the reason for requiring a math/eng/sci degree is because you'd be doing systems maintenance; this is for a specific job track, not just generic "astronaut". it's a reasonable requirement imho.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    3. Re:Ridiculous.. by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "A lot more people (with a lot wider diversity) need to have a shot at making it into space (and we need more rides into space) for us to become a permanently space-faring and space-surviving species. I'm sorry, it's that simple."

      We don't need them in space at the moment, and since sending humans long before unmanned and remote-manned tech humans MUST have to do anything useful in space is a waste of resources, diversity can wait.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  31. Apparently Not! by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

    I never thought about it before but reading this I'm surprised that I meet none of the requirements whatsoever! Not one! And I really don't think of myself as a hopeless case. Verily, these astronauts are like unto gods!

    --
    http://www.acetonestudio.com
  32. 40 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I was growing up, my parents would harp on how cheap things were in the good old days, when a hamburger from McDonald's cost a nickel or some such tripe.

    If NASA's budget has remained stable for the past 40 years, I'm surprised they can afford toilet paper.

    1. Re:40 years? by timeOday · · Score: 2

      If NASA's budget has remained stable for the past 40 years, I'm surprised they can afford toilet paper.

      What the graph title means by "2000 Constant $" is that the figures are adjusted for inflation.

    2. Re:40 years? by demachina · · Score: 2

      The only problem is the U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI) which was probably used to adjust those dollars for inflation has been a complete sham since the 80's.

      Due to the rampant inflation in the 70's they gutted it to keep the cost of government spending on things indexed to inflation like Social Security from exploding and bankrupting the government.

      The core CPI doesn't even food or energy prices which are the two most volatile and most important things people buy every day and the cost of both have been skyrocketing. It does factor in electronics and lots of crap from China which have not been increasing.

      Anecdotally I'm almost positive real prices have gone up 20-30% since the 2008 crash mostly due to the Federal Reserve and Treasury creating trillions of dollars out of thin air with the stroke of a key on their computers and dramatically devaluing the dollar.

      So if NASA spending has stayed constant in inflation adjusted dollars chances are their money goes no where near as far now as it did in the 1960's.

      NASA also has a real talent at squandering money to no good end, like it did on ISS, Shuttle, Ares 1 and pretty much every new launcher they've attemped since Apollo. The next one will be no different. NASA actually sent a team to SpaceX to try to figure out how they've done so much R&D with so little money while NASA does so little with so much by comparison.

      --
      @de_machina
    3. Re:40 years? by Marcika · · Score: 1
      The core CPI doesn't measure these things -- but GP was not talking about core CPI, therefore your objection is irrelevant.

      Your CPI anecdotal is cute, but wrong. Anecdotally (and in reality), a lot of prices are still below the 2008 level - gasoline, for instance, is still 20% cheaper than at the 2008 peak. (And electronics, of course, are half the price or less for the same performance.) Out of the top-level CPI categories in the US, housing, transportation and recreation are at the same level as in 2008.

    4. Re:40 years? by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Note: "Core CPI" is not a statistic issued by the BLS. They do issue an index called "All items, less food and energy". The Federal Reserve (and media) calls this "Core CPI".

      We do a continuous nationwide survey so that we don't have to rely on anecdotes.

  33. Physical fitness. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would like know why they need people in great physical condition when you're just floating around in space.

    Secondly, all that great physical ability atrophies rather quickly.

    Eyesight? My only guess is that they don't want you bring glasses. SO get Lasiks or whatever the latest method at laser corrective eye surgery these days is called.

    Ambitious people? Sounds like they want people like the assholes who went to the law school my ex went to. They would take resumes of their classmates out of the job fair pile to better their chances. They were plenty ambitious.

    Or is it they want folks who'll work themselves ragged at the slim chance of getting into space? It'd be easier to get filthy rich and pay someone to drive the bus up their for you. Yeah! That's a stat problem: compare the odds of becoming an astronaut with becoming someone rich enough to pay the Russians or even Virgin to send you up. The hard work I'd guess would cancel out of the equation. To bcome an astronaut the variables would be fgx and to become rich: abx. So compare fg with ab.

    1. Re:Physical fitness. by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1

      Being in great shape at launch means that your heart and skeletal muscles take longer to atrophy (and your bones longer to demineralize) to the point that it's dangerous to return to gravitating conditions.

      Also, takeoff is a rather stressful condition to endure for minutes on end.

    2. Re:Physical fitness. by sackbut · · Score: 1

      Ambitious people? Sounds like they want people like the assholes who went to the law school my ex went to. They would take resumes of their classmates out of the job fair pile to better their chances. They were plenty ambitious.

      Or is it they want folks who'll work themselves ragged at the slim chance of getting into space? It'd be easier to get filthy rich and pay someone to drive the bus up their for you. Yeah! That's a stat problem: compare the odds of becoming an astronaut with becoming someone rich enough to pay the Russians or even Virgin to send you up. The hard work I'd guess would cancel out of the equation. To bcome an astronaut the variables would be fgx and to become rich: abx. So compare fg with ab.

      After meeting several astronauts they are far from assholes. Keeping one's nose clean is important to being able to 'fly'. Even 'interviewed' one when I was a grad student when she was applying to be faculty after her stint at NASA. They are ambitious or they wouldn't stick with it. A good read is "Riding Rockets" by Mike Mullane. Very funny read. Kind of confessions of a shuttle crew member. Good insight into the psychology, physical demands, etc that NASA was looking for.

  34. Disqualifiers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait. So If I have an engineering degree, and thousands of flight hours, great physical shape and perfect eyesight, BUT I happened out of pure hyperactive studiousness to ALSO have a degree in social sciences or something, I'm automatically disqualified?

    (Not that I have anything but the first two)

    1. Re:Disqualifiers by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      So you're an engineer and you wait tables? Huh? That ain't much!

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
  35. Only me! by NSN+A392-99-964-5927 · · Score: 1

    Astronaut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronaut no but a Cosmonaut yes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmonaut#Russian have you sat on a sky rocket today?

    --
    All cows eat grass!
    1. Re:Only me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the United States, Canada, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and many other English-speaking nations, a professional space traveler is called an astronaut.

      So what part of that did you not understand?

    2. Re:Only me! by NSN+A392-99-964-5927 · · Score: 0

      In the United States, Canada, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and many other English-speaking nations, a professional space traveler is called an astronaut.

      So what part of that did you not understand?

      I understand correctly; but appreciate your uncanny below the belt comment. If you truly understood what you were talking about you would be dangerous. That is a below the belt reply. Obviously that was not what you were expecting anonymous coward!

      hang on but that is all you are a coward.

      Mooo00o0000oo00o0

      --
      All cows eat grass!
  36. Drugtest?? by santax · · Score: 2

    This is racism! Else I would qualify... Besides, who better to keep em head cool when need is be. Peace out, brothers. - signed, Santax, nephew of Sanka, famous from the Jamaican bobslee team. -

  37. Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next question.

    1. Re:Yes. by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      Smug bastard

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
  38. Frequent travel may be required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not nearly frequent enough.

  39. Wow by sqrt(2) · · Score: 1

    I'm sure that's not even an exhaustive list of the requirements. So my question is, how did we ever find someone in the past if we've been using THAT as the bar you have to meet to be considered?

    Wouldn't it be easier to take the people who are smart and have the physical qualifications (or even just the physical potential, you could train them like soldiers do and get them into better shape) enough to do the job and then train them to do it? Seems like an absurd parody of the job market at large. Entry level position available, must have at least 1 PhD and 10 years experience...

    Good luck, NASA.

    --
    If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    1. Re:Wow by kylemonger · · Score: 1

      Well, NASA used to be the only game in town, unless you were a Soviet. Now, a bright and motivated person can choose to cobble together the $200K for a Virgin Galactic flight. It's not orbit, but you can be sure that if they take your money you're going, unlike at NASA where even if you're hired you never know.

    2. Re:Wow by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      I don't think "Astronaut" is considered an entry level career. The people who apply don't just wake up one morning and decide "I'm sick of this job, I'm gonna apply to be an astronaut." They work their asses off and form their careers around it.

      --
      +1 Disagree
  40. Re:NASA, the world's leader in space and aeronauti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Really? How do your 'astronots' get into space again these days? Oh....yeah. Hope that stings.

    Come on, which company doesn't outsources these days?

  41. I have the qualifications to be red shirt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's about it.

  42. NASA Unit Conversions by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    No Soyuz for me :(

    Might be worth checking - I'm sure the Soyuz dimensions are specified in metric since it is a Russian design and it would not be the first time the guys at NASA have got a simple unit conversion wrong!

    1. Re:NASA Unit Conversions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modified Soyuz TM (after June 1999)

      Maximum standing height: 190 cm
      Minimum standing height: 150 cm

      http://www.spaceref.com/iss/spacecraft/soyuz.tm.html

  43. Worked with Astronauts at JSC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I worked in the MCC at JSC in the 1990s. Part of my job was installing software on the laptops taken into space and training every astronaut on the use of the software I was responsible for. That was until I pissed off the wrong astronaut and was replaced for the training aspects. Type-A is an understatement.

    For the most part they seem like regular people, except that they are driven to succeed beyond a level that is healthy for most people. Their job is a competition every second of every day with their coworkers. They are extremely focused and can't get bogged down with less focused people holding them back.

    Forget that the machines they get into are very dangerous.

    You will die - dangerous.

    Before I worked in the MCC, I wrote GN&C software for the space shuttles. About a year ago a paper was published concerning the software errors across every mission that were known at the end of the program. It is amazing how many critical flaws were in the software that were unknown. In 1990, we didn't think there were any remaining critical (loss of life and/or vehicle) software errors remaining. Turns out we were very wrong. VERY WRONG. I don't recall the exact number know in that software but it was well over 100. These were life ending bugs.

    The astronaut life isn't for me or most of you. Look into your heart and you know that's true. If you haven't been driven all your life, have multiple masters and at least 1 PhD and you've been training for a marathon, then forget it.

    1. Re:Worked with Astronauts at JSC by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the insight... Hard to believe how many people are posting here bemoaning the fact that they don't meet the requirements - insisting that NASAs job description is too specific and should be broadened. Justifying how their lack of the right degree, ambition, or "large frame" wouldn't really hold them back. Fact is, there are thousands of people that meet those requirements and could do the job. We just aren't those people.

      --
      +1 Disagree
  44. right stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The right stuff you need is greeen,and has a picture of Andrew Jackson on on side
    You need at least a million o them

  45. This is weird by sootman · · Score: 1

    "Certain degrees are immediate disqualifiers, including nursing, social sciences, aviation, exercise physiology, technology, and some psychology degrees, too."

    Anyone know (or have a good guess) why?

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    1. Re:This is weird by Fred+Ferrigno · · Score: 1

      My guess is those degrees typically don't require as much math or science.

    2. Re:This is weird by PT_1 · · Score: 1

      "Certain degrees are immediate disqualifiers, including nursing, social sciences, aviation, exercise physiology, technology, and some psychology degrees, too."

      Anyone know (or have a good guess) why?

      It's because they're not "traditional" science or engineering courses, and it's likely NASA wants candidates with a strong background in math etc. It doesn't say that just because a person's earned one of the stated degrees (nursing etc.) they're disqualified; it's just that if nursing is their only degree, then they're not suitably qualified. I imagine if somebody earned their nursing degree and then also studied a degree in math (although I'm sure this hardly ever happens), they would be allowed to apply.

    3. Re:This is weird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nah. they just don't want any whiny girls blouses fucking it up for them. Fair enough really.

  46. Flying & Drinking and Drinking & Driving by niktemadur · · Score: 2

    From the Tom Wolfe book, the world needs "heroes" like this, like it needs a hole in the head:

    "More fighter pilots died in automobiles than in airplanes. Fortunately, there was always some kindly soul up the chain to certify the papers `line of duty,' so that the widow could get a better break on the insurance. That was okay and only proper because somehow the system itself had long ago said Skol! and Quite right! to the military cycle of Flying & Drinking and Drinking & Driving, as if there were no other way. Every young fighter jock knew the feeling of getting two or three hours' sleep and then waking up at 5:30 a.m. and having a few cups of coffee, a few cigarettes, and then carting his poor quivering liver out to the field for another day of flying. There were those who arrived not merely hungover but still drunk, slapping oxygen tank cones over their faces and trying to burn the alcohol out of their systems, and then going up, remarking later: `I don't advise it, you understand, but it can be done. (Provided you have the right stuff, you miserable pudknocker).'" The Right Stuff (1979)

    --
    Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
  47. Why exactly do they care if I smoke pot? by euroq · · Score: 1

    Not trolling, seriously: why would pot smoking be a disqualifier? Alcohol isn't. Obviously not so much that you aren't in shape or healthy or have a well rounded life, but disqualifying by marijuana seems quite out dated, as if they were going off of the basis that marijuana will destroy your body.

    --
    Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
    1. Re:Why exactly do they care if I smoke pot? by PT_1 · · Score: 1

      Not trolling, seriously: why would pot smoking be a disqualifier? Alcohol isn't. Obviously not so much that you aren't in shape or healthy or have a well rounded life, but disqualifying by marijuana seems quite out dated, as if they were going off of the basis that marijuana will destroy your body.

      I'm sure this isn't the only reason, but as I understand it -- and any biologists feel free to correct me -- THC stays in the brain far longer than alcohol. The half life of alcohol means that a person could have a drink on Friday evening and have it completely removed from their body by Monday morning; cannabis may linger, affecting one's performance, for days.

    2. Re:Why exactly do they care if I smoke pot? by Shinobi · · Score: 1

      Because THC is dissolved and stored in bodyfat, and can remain for a long time(In at least two cases I know of, there were enough traces left to show up 8 years after they smoked hashish), and can trigger the side-effects of THC, such as paranoia etc... And the psychological strain of the mission is severe enough that you don't want a dopehead who can freak out with paranoia or such.

    3. Re:Why exactly do they care if I smoke pot? by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

      Actually, it isn't the psychoactive THC that gets absorbed into the fat, but non-psychoactive metabolites like 11-nor-9-Carboxy-THC.

      They can hang around in the body for a long time (depending on frequency of use), but they will NOT cause any impairment. The prohibitionists depend on the confusion between the active drug and its inactive metabolites to keep perpetuating the myth that people stay stoned (or at least "impaired") for months after smoking a joint.

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    4. Re:Why exactly do they care if I smoke pot? by Shinobi · · Score: 1

      Oh, those bunk science claims again. Fully on par with homeopathy, vegan "sciences" and free energy kooks

  48. Why does NASA need more astronauts? by Animats · · Score: 2

    NASA still has 57 astronauts on the active list. They used to have over 100, and they probably need less than 25 at this point.

    (NASA needs to revise their web site. It still talks about flying the Space Shuttle.)

    1. Re:Why does NASA need more astronauts? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well, it's a publicity stunt thing.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  49. role model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I heard Lisa Nowak is on the short list for flight once again.

  50. In this context by dexomn · · Score: 1

    I find it slightly creepy that the term 'Permanent Employment' is being used.

  51. Re:NASA, the world's leader in space and aeronauti by captainpanic · · Score: 1

    Companies don't outsource the core-business. They outsource everything else. NASA however...

  52. Re:Economically Viable by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    Sure it is, last I recall there was a lot of useful spinoff tech from the space research.

    Unfortunately we wasted a decade and a trillion dollars on a nonsensical war which almost literally did nothing. So now, yeah, the response to all kinds of holistic endeavors is "can't afford it".

    Also, tech-wise, can't Smartphones do all the computing that the mainframes of the 60's did? So shouldn't it be a snap to build "cheap" space tech? Why is space the only industry where we're not applying Moore's Law?

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  53. Yep by shiftless · · Score: 1

    I have all the right stuff to be a fantastic NASA astronaut. The question is, does NASA have all the right stuff to attract me into its program, so that I can look forward to years of wasting away doing nothing while others are actually out accomplishing things?

    Sadly, the answer is no.

  54. Are you ready to hum? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You also have to be ready and able to hum the Star Spangled Banner from the stall in the restroom.

  55. Not disqualified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The summary says "To qualify, you'll need at least a bachelor's degree in science, engineering or mathematics. Certain degrees are immediate disqualifiers, including nursing, social sciences, aviation, exercise physiology, technology, and some psychology degrees, too.". If you read TFA you'll find they don't _disqualify_ you, they just don't _qualify_ you - you'll need another one as well.

  56. Time to go Hollywood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think NASA is going about this all 1970's and that is so 1980's. Today its about reality and making money. My suggestion, toss out that stupid list of public "qualifications" and go X Factor meets the Kardasians (hmm, will I get sued for using their name). NASA needs to start a reality/talent show for the next great astronauts..no, Space Idols. Everyone has a chance to apply. Don't trust pieces of paper, make applicants "perform" and be judged by a panel of current astronauts and one visiting star that has no real clue about space.

    As the crowd narrows the challenges get harder. We start to follow key people and here's the best part, the public gets to vote for their favorite space idols. NASA could fund the next mission to Mars with this type of TV/Media display. At the end, 5 are chosen from, lets say 10, and the most popular is voted the true Space Idol. Do you think this demeans the purity of NASA? Please, grow up. If there is one thing Kim taught us, 72 days of acting goes a long way towards paying the bills. NASA/Hollywood could whip this up in a few months and be ready for the fall prime time season, 2012.

    Me? As a middle aged, average build, good programmer with dreams of space, I'd stand in line for that shot. The current system, no way.

    (This from bucc5062, I posted AC because I modded this thread)

  57. So Boring.... by realisticradical · · Score: 1
    Only US Government speak can make traveling to space sound so incredibly dull.

    Astronauts are involved in all aspects of assembly and on-orbit operations of the ISS. This includes extravehicular activities (EVA), robotics operations using the remote manipulator system, experiment operations, and onboard maintenance tasks.

    So walking in outer space, fixing satellites, and doing cutting edge science in a zero gravity environment. Heck, "onboard maintenance tasks" makes it sound like they're hiring janitors.

  58. Death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should you make it into the capsue, probability of dieing is around 2%.

  59. It's Complicated by painandgreed · · Score: 1

    The Soviet Union did do a lot of the work in defeating the Nazis. The Eastern Front was where most of the actions was, however, they were receiving lots of aid from the US, Britain and Canada. 15% of their tanks were Shermans. 20% of their fighters and bombers were also from the Lend Lease. Something like 80% of their trucks were American made. Then, there is the artillery, submachine guns and millions of tons of non-military goods shipped to the USSR.

    From Wikipedia on Lend Lease Act:
    'Joseph Stalin, during the Tehran Conference in 1943, acknowledged publicly the importance of American efforts during a dinner at the conference: "Without American production the United Nations could never have won the war."'[18]

  60. the real qualifications needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to visit JSC when the shuttle flight count used to be numbered with a single digit. There'd always be a representative from the astronaut office in technical meetings. It seemed their job was just to say "no." Pilot astronauts are projected to be rodeo riders chomping for a wilder horse. In reality, pilot astronauts want space experience and equally want the opportunity to collect their pensions. Truth be told, pilot astronauts were put in a difficult situation: all the technical compromises made along the way fell on their shoulders to resolve. We'd create systems that couldn't be fully revised because other systems depended on how they used to be, so their operation ended up a bit quirky and the user interface a bit of a kluge. When the engineers were done, making it all work became an astronaut training issue. This meant astronauts had to be worked and drilled and rehearsed on how to make things work. It also meant an astronaut trained for one mission might not be properly trained for another mission that had updated systems. To be a good pilot astronaut candidate you have to have an innate early warning system to detect attempts to shift burden your way, know how to say "no" with a smile, have the ability to sway a committee, be able to summarize and report your experiences accurately and in a timely and well organized manner, get along with and unify your outlook with other astronaut office colleagues, demonstrate that you can keep your private life private, get along with administrators, and do some piloting. An astronaut is part of a system that's remotely supervised. The qualities of the whole system must be discernible and controllable from the ground in real time. Repeatability and predictability are key, surprises are not wanted. The publicized qualifications filter out those who cannot work cogently with a team. NASA figures out the rest during the qualification process.

  61. Re:Economically Viable by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

    Moore's Law is doing a lot for space, but it isn't making lift cost to orbit any cheaper. Also, the really cutting edge microchips don't play well with high energy electrons beaming into them.