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.'"
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!
No Soyuz for me :(
Just finished a box of Kraft Dinner and I'm sitting here reading Slashdot... go ahead and mark a 'no' down for me.
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.
Really? How do your 'astronots' get into space again these days? Oh....yeah. Hope that stings.
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
>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!
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!
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.'
You'd just about have to be genetically engineered to make those requirements.
20/20 vision? Incredible shape? This is slashdot, that means none of us qualify.
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
"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.
* The excessively flatulent need not apply.
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!
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.
"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...
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.
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?
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)
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
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"
How disappointing....
All that, and they still allow you in if you believe in god.
lasik and glasses / contacts are ok
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!
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.
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
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!
What the graph title means by "2000 Constant $" is that the figures are adjusted for inflation.
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. -
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
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?
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!
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.
"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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.)
I find it slightly creepy that the term 'Permanent Employment' is being used.
Companies don't outsource the core-business. They outsource everything else. NASA however...
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
So you're an engineer and you wait tables? Huh? That ain't much!
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Smug bastard
http://www.acetonestudio.com