Slashdot Mirror


NASA Selects 8 New Astronaut Trainees, Including 4 Women

illiteratehack writes "NASA has selected a 39-year-old chief technology officer to become a trainee astronaut. Josh Cassada is the current chief technology officer and co-founder of Quantum Opus, a firm that specialises in photonics. Cassada is one of eight individuals selected by NASA from 6,100 applicants for astronaut training, though what their future mission may be has yet to be revealed." Of the astronaut trainees selected, four of them are women — a new record.

136 comments

  1. To Mars! by Gothmolly · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think I've seen this Archer episode.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:To Mars! by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      I was actually thinking that with her hair color/style and uniform that Anne McClain had a vague resemblance to Amanda Tapping's character from SG1...

  2. Why so many military folks? by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I would think it would be easier to train PhDs to be astronauts than Military folks to be PhDs.

    I get it that NASA started out testing planes, but there is nothing for the astronaut to fly anymore. Even the shuttle should have been automated.

    1. Re:Why so many military folks? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      but there is nothing for the astronaut to fly anymore

      Oh sure there is. Just not at this point in time. Unless you have an FTL radio to control complex deep space missions remotely.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Why so many military folks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when something goes wrong?

    3. Re:Why so many military folks? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      They are just as screwed as they are now.

      Humans cause most of those things that go wrong. Look at flight crash statistics for proof of that. Better yet take the humans out of the space craft all together.

    4. Re:Why so many military folks? by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I gather that they know what they are doing, but I imagine that "makes decisions well while under pressure" might be a pretty big criteria that might already be tested in a military pilot.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    5. Re:Why so many military folks? by alen · · Score: 2

      the Naval and Air Force Academies are some of the best engineering schools in the world. You have to be in the top 5% or higher in your high school class to even be considered to attend. and they have phd's as well

    6. Re:Why so many military folks? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Humans are not going into deep space. Even then a computer will still be a much better pilot. Moving the few light seconds up into orbit is not going to help that problem much.

    7. Re:Why so many military folks? by h4rr4r · · Score: 0

      Why?
      What decisions will they be making?
      What experiment to run next?

      Everything is done with checklists, and it is not like there is any need for a pilot.

      My bet is they select these folks for PR reasons or other political BS.

    8. Re:Why so many military folks? by h4rr4r · · Score: 0

      Oh wow, top 5% of a highschool class. That seems like a pretty low mark unless it is a hell of a high school.

      Then why does everyone talk about going to MIT and not the Air Force Academy?

    9. Re:Why so many military folks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh wow, top 5% of a highschool class. That seems like a pretty low mark unless it is a hell of a high school.

      I imagine they get a lot of rote memorization geniuses that way.

    10. Re:Why so many military folks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because at least some astronauts are required to be pilots with so many hours experiences in jets. Overwhelmingly this experience is easiest to find in the military. Did you fly your own jet to work today?

    11. Re:Why so many military folks? by h4rr4r · · Score: 0

      Why?
      There is no need for that. The shuttle should have been automated like buran. Dragon does not need a pilot.

    12. Re:Why so many military folks? by hierofalcon · · Score: 1

      Probably the fact that when you graduate you aren't as likely to get shot at by hostile fire. If you do a cost benefit ratio between military and civilian, military doesn't look bad if you stay in long enough. But that getting shot at as part of the job description thing really does slow down the potential applicants. The fact that they are moving to more and more drone based missions doesn't help either.

    13. Re:Why so many military folks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We are closer to getting humans into deep space than we are to make machines make autonomous decisions for unplanned events.

      What we have now is remote controlled cars.

    14. Re:Why so many military folks? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I can't speculate on their "real" reasons for selection, but I think it doesn't take much research to find examples of things going very wrong in space. I have been in situations with people where they reacted quite badly, so I don't think I'm going out on a limb here.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    15. Re:Why so many military folks? by ssam · · Score: 1

      "This sort of thing has cropped up before and it has always been due to human error." -- HAL9000

    16. Re:Why so many military folks? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Citation please.
      Voyager seems to be doing fine without humans.

    17. Re:Why so many military folks? by dywolf · · Score: 1

      humans on the ground (sloppy maintenence crew), not the human in control.
      big difference.
      humans in control have much larger history of saving the day or mitigating/reducing the tragedy than they do of causing the tragedy.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    18. Re:Why so many military folks? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Checkout how many of those are caused by human error.

    19. Re:Why so many military folks? by Shinobi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most military pilots already have a fair amount of schooling in science and engineering, as part of becoming pilots.

      Add to that the fact that military pilots, during their entire training, are taught to operate under heavy physical and mental stress, while following instructions from remote Controllers, and also to handle their plane according to check-lists and routines, as well as crisis management, and teamwork. Then there's also the routine psychological check-ups in many armed forces, which means you have fewer people with mental disorders that can disrupt team cohesion/efficiency(ADHD, Asperger etc etc). There's also the fact that the military people also are used to strict daily physical excercise.

      On the other hand, many PHD's don't do much in the way of physical excercise at all, and for those who do, most only gym or similar light excercise a couple of times per week, they have no training in working under a combination of psychological AND physical pressure, no crisis management, little in the way of deep, life-dependant teamwork etc. Many have a deep-seated resentment against "jocks", mental disorders such as ADHD, Asperger etc are not exactly uncommon among PHD's etc, meaning the available candidate pool becomes very small.

      There are exceptions of course.... But it's not weird that the military is a readily-available candidate pool.

    20. Re:Why so many military folks? by dywolf · · Score: 1

      because its harder to get into the AFA.
      seriously, you are a bloody tool and you're just as ignorant on this topic as you are on every other.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    21. Re:Why so many military folks? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      BS, look at flight crashes. Hell look at that t-38 crash in your link.

      Humans period make tons of mistakes. Their are entire categories they are so common, like "controlled flight into terrain."

    22. Re:Why so many military folks? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the good answer.
      I had not considered the team stuff at all.

      I still think we should look to getting rid of astronauts, but at least that makes sense.

    23. Re:Why so many military folks? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      OK, but humans are by definition still in the manned spaceflight program.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    24. Re:Why so many military folks? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Voyager 1 & 2 do receive commands from NASA.

      And they haven't had any unplanned events to deal with on their own.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    25. Re:Why so many military folks? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Apparently you haven't read any flight crash findings. Most are pilot error.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    26. Re:Why so many military folks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US Military academies are some of the most selective Universities out there. That doesn't make them the best in the world, that just means that there are many more applicants than seats available. That being said, the US Military academies have some of the best engineering schools in the world... it just has nothing to do with their selectiveness.

    27. Re:Why so many military folks? by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      1. voyager does not support human life. we're still experimenting with long term life support technology, but it's not ready for a real mission.
      2. voyager has no propulsion system required to reliably reach other systems. we are probably centuries away from this, if it ever happens.

    28. Re:Why so many military folks? by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      Military pilots are, from even before astronaut training, also more likely to understand the acceleration stress of a launch, and to be reasonably comfortable when the realization hits that they're strapped to a giant rocket whose goal is to explode fast enough to hurl them into orbit, but slow enough to not kill them.

      Human brains aren't evolved for this kind of treatment, so it takes a good deal of psychological training to function appropriately under the conditions of spaceflight. In addition to the rapid sequence of events, the acceleration, and the small space, there's the nagging feeling that the shaking, roaring beast is going to end in a sudden yet painful death. I imagine it to be like playing chess on a shaky roller coaster (without gluing down the pieces), but worse.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    29. Re:Why so many military folks? by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      You make good arguments for why a military pilot is a good choice for a pointless position. Never send a human to do a computers job.

    30. Re:Why so many military folks? by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Eliminate one word and the problem is solved.

    31. Re:Why so many military folks? by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Did you fly your own jet to work today?

      No, but when I got there I sat in front of a computer. That's how space exploration should be done.

    32. Re:Why so many military folks? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      1. Stupid idea. Adds unneeded cost just for PR and space nutters.
      2. seems to be working fine in deep space

    33. Re:Why so many military folks? by dywolf · · Score: 4, Informative

      the Buran flew once.
      it did so and was developed over 10 years after the shuttle and was nothing more than a cheaper smaller copy of the shuttle.
      it only flew automated because it was unmanned, as befits a test flight that they dont even know will work (believe it or not, even the russians didnt want to risk losing astronauts...they're kinda hard to replace)
      it never flew again.
      it never did anything again.
      and "From the very beginning Buran was intended to be used in both fully automatic and manual mode", meaning it was ntended to have people, and people in control. if we had had the tech to test the shuttle unmanned initially (and recover it), we likely would have too before moving to manned missions.

      and if youre going to have people along for the ride anyway (EVA, repair the Hubble, experiments, etc etc) it makes no sense for them to be at the mercy of a computer that might fail when you could just as easily add some extra training so they can fly the damn thing if need be and add yet another layer of safety to the system and increase the odds of everyone's survival.

      meanwhile there are multiple instances where the has shuttle faced a problem inflight that either did require the pilot to correct, or potentially would have, and the technology to have an automated system recover the aircraft did not exist at that time. moreover, several of these incidents would have called into question the ability of such a system to make the right corrections. spaceflight and launch and recovery is a very dynamic scenario encompassing multiple modes of flight. the pilot IS the computer you seek capable of taking all the data being fed him by the hundreds of men in mission control and performing the correct actions, and he's easier to train and produce than such a multi-modal control computer.
      1985 July 29: STS-51-F: Space Shuttle in-flight engine failure. They almost aborted launch and detached the shuttle frm the boosters engines before reaching altitude in order to fly cross atlantic to a recovery field. No computer at the time could have handled such a maneuver. Even today it owuld be hard pressed thing to do...its rather hard to test and develop such a system because you dont exactly go around destroying shuttles to perfect a system. (they ended up aborting to orbit rather than aborting to xatlantic)

      1999 July 23: STS-93: main engine electrical short and hydrogen leak: Five seconds after liftoff, an electrical short knocked out controllers for two shuttle main engines. The engines automatically switched to their backup controllers. Had a further short shut down two engines, Columbia would have ditched in the ocean, although the crew could have possibly bailed out. Concurrently a pin came loose inside one engine and ruptured a cooling line, allowing a hydrogen fuel leak. This caused premature fuel exhaustion, but the vehicle safely achieved a slightly lower orbit. Had the failure propagated further, a risky transatlantic or RTLS abort would have been required.

      1981 Apr 12: Columbia STS-1 - the perfect example of why your computer still needs a pilot. the computer demands predictable flight characteristics. but if you pay attention, in the very first shuttle flight a flight control was knocked out of alignment. A computer cannot handle such a thing. A computer cannot "feel its way" through the modifed flight envelope.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    34. Re:Why so many military folks? by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Shut up HAL, you were deactivated 12 years ago.

    35. Re:Why so many military folks? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Heck...why even bother?

      It isn't like we actually seem to have a valid space program anymore.

      NASA has been decimated so badly in recent years, I'm thinking "new" astronauts are more for looks than any real substance.

      What the hell are we gonna send them out on?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    36. Re:Why so many military folks? by ssam · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry I can't do that ebno.

    37. Re:Why so many military folks? by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      humans in control have much larger history of saving the day or mitigating/reducing the tragedy than they do of causing the tragedy

      Which results only in them saving their own asses. It's pretty silly to send someone someplace were the justification is so that they can save themselves. Why not save a bunch of money and leave them on the ground? Almost all useful scientific and practical work has been done by unmanned missions, for a small fraction of the price. If some of those unmanned missions crash and burn for lack of the heroic human touch, it's just part of the price of doing business, and still a lot cheaper than manned missions.

    38. Re:Why so many military folks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The shuttle design process started in 1968. The computers of the day couldn't automate a toaster. Even today, when you take a commercial flight, there is a pilot. Just because it's space doesn't make it some special magical world where things work like they do in sci-fi.

    39. Re:Why so many military folks? by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      because its harder to get into the AFA

      But a much better place to harass women.

    40. Re:Why so many military folks? by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      1. I agree. For now anyway.
      2. not if you actually want the craft to arrive at specific destinations reliably. Ballistics+thrusters work ok for in-system exploration but getting an unpowered craft to another star system is nearly impossible.

    41. Re:Why so many military folks? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      What start system is close enough for that?
      Even if we could go some significant percentage of C it seems pretty unlikely to be worthwhile.

    42. Re:Why so many military folks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spaceflight?

    43. Re:Why so many military folks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many have a deep-seated resentment against "jocks", mental disorders such as ADHD, Asperger etc are not exactly uncommon among PHD's etc, meaning the available candidate pool becomes very small.

      So do many people in the military. Even with the routine check-ups, many of those issues can still be highly functional or otherwise not a noticeable issue in many environments.

      Posts like this aren't so much a reason to go with people from the military, but suggest that they should do psychological and physical fitness screening of candidates, which they already do. Considering the small number of people they are interested in, it is quite easy to find more than enough people who qualify on those grounds, military or not. The question then becomes what skill-set do they want. The ability to operate and repair things, both experiments and critical equipment, is probably going to factor more into the final selection, once they got the easy stuff like fitness out of the way.

    44. Re:Why so many military folks? by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      One thing Clarke and Kubrick correctly predicted is what a pain in the ass computers are.

    45. Re:Why so many military folks? by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

      Military pilots are ... reasonably comfortable when the realization hits that they're strapped to a giant rocket whose goal is to explode fast enough to hurl them into orbit, but slow enough to not kill them.

      While the engineers who designed that not-quite-bomb sit a mile away behind several feet of reinforced concrete. The obvious inference is that pilots are not too bright.

    46. Re:Why so many military folks? by TWiTfan · · Score: 0

      NASA should just be honest and hire a bunch of PR people. That's 99% of what they're going to end up doing anyway. You don't need a Ph.D. in physics to sit around in LEO on a space station, doing podcasts for schoolkids.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    47. Re:Why so many military folks? by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      you just said "seems to be working fine in deep space".

    48. Re:Why so many military folks? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Well, it's kind of a separate discussion, but personally I support efforts to keep man in space.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    49. Re:Why so many military folks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And thats why for a mission to Mars we should send submariners (engineers, doctors, and the rest)

    50. Re:Why so many military folks? by KernelMuncher · · Score: 1

      It's not always about minimizing the cost of missions. It's also about maximizing public support (and Congressional $$ ) for the work. And nothing gets people enthusiastic like having them see a human being jumping around on a moon or another planet (see Armstrong, Neil).

    51. Re:Why so many military folks? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      And?

      Voyager is working fine in deep space. Even that is not very close to another star system.

      Go look at the distances we are talking about.

    52. Re:Why so many military folks? by cangrejoinmortal · · Score: 1

      You assert that with much authority but offer no explanation. I actually believe is the other way around, at least we are getting closer (though there is still a long way to go) to some FLOPS estimates of the human brain (which is nothing but a vast neural network with 'analog' input and output values). On the other hand we have no clue on what to do to solve problems like our short lifespans, food requirements, ship design, energy and the like that must be solved to at least attempt to take humans further than our own solar system (optimistically we will be ready to go to mars in 20 years).

    53. Re:Why so many military folks? by ruir · · Score: 1

      Because they are crazy and sociopath enough?

    54. Re:Why so many military folks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell are we gonna send them out on?

      Soyuz!

    55. Re:Why so many military folks? by bkmoore · · Score: 1

      Ever see the movie "The Birdman of Alcatraz"? Getting a PhD is a lot like being the birdman, only without the jail cell or the guards. Like that prisoner, you do some basic research / experimentation while reading up on a topic, you publish, continue reading, eventually maybe find a good topic for a theses, do more research, more experimentation, and publish again. After a positive review, you might have a PhD. It's an individual effort. A PhD in and of itself is a stamp of approval that this person can perform quality scientific work independently.

      Being an Astronaut OTOH, is about being a team player, not unlike being part of the crew of a ship or an aircraft. The military excels at training people to operate complex machinery. A lot of military officers, especially pilots, also have PhDs in engineering and science. So when the selection committee is reviewing applications, they are probably looking for a good balance, not a birdman, but also not just some fighter jock.

    56. Re:Why so many military folks? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Are the pilots making errors in situations that the autopilot would have handled fine or are they making errors because they are in a dificult situation that the autopilot was unable to handle forcing them to take over?

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    57. Re:Why so many military folks? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Military folks dying during an official mission is easier to justify than killing off regular PhDs. Workplace safety is more lax with militaries.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    58. Re:Why so many military folks? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The Saturn V was heavily automated, but without a crew Apollo 12 and 13 wouldn't have made it.

    59. Re:Why so many military folks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's because Obama put the nigger Charles Bolden in charge of NASA.

      Nigger-bashing is so passe. Let's start bashing faggot. I bet there's more than one faggot in the administration we can pin the blame on.

    60. Re:Why so many military folks? by Moofie · · Score: 2

      Space exploration is an intellectual curiosity. Space colonization and exploitation is, in the medium to long term, the only thing that matters.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    61. Re:Why so many military folks? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The "team player" bit is sadly channelling "I Dream of Jeanie" more than reality. The Russians pushed that hard but NASA, at least in the 1980s, didn't check for the sort of personality problems you do not want to see in a team member in a stressful situation. An example was one of the members of an International team on Mir that refused to do anything other than his own project even as the station was falling apart around him. The other NASA member on board barely slept for over a month to compensate for his team member's failure to contribute to repairs. Considering the events going on at the time (a fire, toxic chemical leaks into work areas, a docking collision, venting oxygen to space) you could say the problem crew member was not doing extra work even though his life depended on it. I don't know if the priorities have changed - they may still be going for a "hero" personality and not checking to see if psychological problems come with it.

    62. Re:Why so many military folks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but those long months of rebreathing thier own farts really screws up thier brains. There is a reason they are derrogatorily referred to as bubbleheads.

  3. Astronaut Trainees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What space ship will they be flying in?

    1. Re:Astronaut Trainees by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Dragon, I would guess.

    2. Re:Astronaut Trainees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What space ship will they be flying in?

      Soyuz ?Otherwise these guys will be dead by the time the next american capsule/spaceship is ready to go.

    3. Re:Astronaut Trainees by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      What space ship will they be flying in?

      I've heard that NASA was making a technology transfer deal with Edward Makuka Nkoloso.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:Astronaut Trainees by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      What space ship will they be flying in?

      Soyuz ?Otherwise these guys will be dead by the time the next american capsule/spaceship is ready to go.

      Shouldn't we be saying "cosmonauts"?

  4. they have kitchens in space? by alen · · Score: 2, Funny

    i though they didn't need to cook their food up there

    1. Re:they have kitchens in space? by RenderSeven · · Score: 0

      Spacecraft need cleaning too. Though Russian craft then to vacuum themselves...

    2. Re:they have kitchens in space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find your comment is too sexist for my taste. Are you trying to imply that women can do more than cook food. If you knew my wife, you'd know they can't even do that.
      On a second thought, you can know her in the biblical sense if you pay enough.

  5. 8 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As long as we don't lose them seven at a time, one would think we should be ok for a while, right?

    1. Re:8 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NASA: Need Another Seven Astronauts.

      Should I assume they will be known as NAEA now?

  6. goods news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now they can film two 2 C's in a K commercials at once. IN SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

  7. What's going on? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    12 comments, 0 sexist joke?! What happened to /. :-)

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    1. Re:What's going on? by Zapotek · · Score: 1

      That's not funny!

    2. Re:What's going on? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Six minutes late. Must have stopped to pee.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:What's going on? by richlv · · Score: 1

      not even as a joke, but... maybe nasa is looking towards more long term missions, the ones where sending 7 guys and one female wouldn't be the brightest idea ?
      make it 50/50 and you have higher chances of them staying happy.

      --
      Rich
    4. Re:What's going on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was taken over by a bunch of pandering, spineless, 'politically correct' losers about 12 years ago.

    5. Re:What's going on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      12 comments, 0 sexist joke?! What happened to /. :-)

      Quoting directly from the IMDb, this is what came to mind:etal: Dr. Strangelove. "General "Buck" Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned? "

    6. Re:What's going on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh. "Politically correct" is just the pejorative term for "polite," or perhaps "polite to the less powerful." I find that rude people think they're very brave and "edgy." Mainly they're just rude.

    7. Re:What's going on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if the mission is less than 28 days.

  8. Re:Good thing they selected some women by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    s/for/with/

  9. Here's the list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because the summary couldn't be bothered.

    Five are military (four are Navy test pilots, surprising no one, the fifth is a doctor), and the other three are useful Ph.D.s. Cassada really is the only standout among them, because he's a physicist, not a CTO, by training (which will make the scientific community at least a little happier about manned space missions). Meir is an enigma for sure, but makes sense from a strategic standpoint: she's done some time for NASA at JSC and Lockheed Martin doing human experiments and working with astronauts on the ISS, is interested in astrobiology, and worked at Aquarius Underwater Laboratory, which was later used to simulate an asteroid mission last year.

    All of them are mostly in their mid to late 30s, which means the next class of astronauts are likely to be Millenials: all you shiny new Ph.D.s should start polishing your resumes for space!

    1. Re:Here's the list by TWiTfan · · Score: 1

      four are Navy test pilots

      Well, it takes a lot of flight training to sit strapped in a chair while the Russians drive.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
  10. Gender is front page? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Women will have made real progress when their participation isn't considered newsworthy.

    I though we moved past female astronauts as a newsworth novelty decades ago.

    1. Re:Gender is front page? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it sounds to me a lot like a title "Affirmative Action in Action!"

    2. Re:Gender is front page? by epyT-R · · Score: 0

      Cultural marxists must always push as though they've made no headway because it helps ramp up the sensationalism...and taxpayer funded privilege.

      I don't mind having female astronauts. I have a problem with astronauts being chosen because they're female instead of having the best qualifications. That is sexist by definition, and is wrong if gender has no relevance here. I don't know whether these women were chosen in this way, but considering cultural trends these days, it's a possibility.

    3. Re:Gender is front page? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you can bet that if the top 7 candidates were all white or Asian men, that at least three of them would have been bumped for women and a token black guy.

  11. How much did he pay? by zitsky · · Score: 1

    How much did that CTO pay for his spot? He was really that much better than 6,000 other people?

    1. Re:How much did he pay? by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      How much did that CTO pay for his spot? He was really that much better than 6,000 other people?

      Hopefully he paid a lot. In the 21st century astronauts are just characters to play Buck Rogers. Sell the seats to the highest bidders and use the money to do some useful space science instead.

  12. Space brothers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To all of you criticizing the NASA selection process and astronaut requirements without knowing sh*t about it, you should see an anime called "Space Brothers" (http://myanimelist.net/anime/12431/Uchuu_Kyoudai) where the main characters tries to become an astronaut in NASA.
    I also don't know sh*t about the real selection process, but at least I don't criticize it cluelessly.

    1. Re:Space brothers by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      NASA is a government agency. This guarantees that any candidate selection process is loaded with politically correct assumptions and discriminators.

    2. Re:Space brothers by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      The ridiculous programs the trainees go through in that show make for good television, but it isn't even remotely based in reality.

  13. Post to undo mods by mindsofpsi · · Score: 1

    Ignore me.

  14. Too bad thtey don't have a ride. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since NASA currently has no capability to get them into space, what was the point?

  15. Potemkin space program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Training 'astronauts' for make believe missions on a make believe launcher. If any money existed to pay for asteroid mission hardware the NEA would claim it just like they claimed Constellation.

  16. Re:Good thing they selected some women by lightknight · · Score: 2

    Actually, this is a good thing. Women in general weigh less than men, which, when it comes to payload calculations, is something you do care about; neurologically speaking, they are as capable as men. The only downsides are the traditional ones -> should an oddball scenario arise where having that much more extra upper body strength is somehow the difference between life and death (the space station is pushed out of orbit, and you need to realign the Space Shuttle engines feeds with a giant crowbar, or face a fiery re-entry), and gender wars (you absolutely can't have one on a space shuttle / space station...you have a job to do, any strife / problems that arise must be resolved quickly and decisively). I do recall that NASA does not have a spotless track record here: Lisa Nowak. On the plus side, they do tend to eat less than men, and probably consume less air, so if the Space Shuttle somehow is dislodged with a meteor while simultaneously taking out the cafeteria / life support / Soyuz capsule, you actually stand a fair chance of surviving long enough for a new one to arrive.

    --
    I am John Hurt.
  17. Do the math.... Babies.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    8 astronauts.... 4 of them women... that means that 4 of them were men......
    They are pairing up for the greatest experiment of all time.....

    That's right Moon Raker fans....
    Shaggin' in Space.
    Space Babies!!!!

    1. Re:Do the math.... Babies.... by cowdung · · Score: 1

      these women will be waaaaay past menopause by the time they get to space.

      They should have selected toddlers and trained them along the way.

  18. Re:Good thing they selected some women by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also shorter people tend to withstand g-forces better. /inb4 "then why don't we have a midget space program?"

  19. On a related note... by bradgoodman · · Score: 3, Funny

    I am recruiting astronauts for my own agency, to fly my own manned spacecraft fleet - which I am proud to say is just as large as NASAs.

    1. Re:On a related note... by Zynder · · Score: 1

      Will yours have blackjack and hookers?

  20. Re:Of course a new record... by epyT-R · · Score: 0

    Of course, but it makes perfect sense if you accept the pillars of political correctness as truth. viva la revolucion!!

  21. In Soviet Russian Spacecraft, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Soviet Russian Spacecraft,

    Vacuum cleans you!

  22. i have to agree... by globaljustin · · Score: 0

    partially at least...

    Manned space is just a cargo cult at this point.

    More like changing the oil in your car in a straight jacket following instructions from a blind person...watch some old ISS footage of spacewalks and other EVA and you'll see the poor Astronaut have to, essentially, report every move they make and get a 'yes/no' from Ground Control....every...move...'remove wrench from toolkit' takes 3 confirmations from ground...

    'risk management' to the destructive degree...it's psychotic...death by bureaucracy

    I appreciate where you are coming from though...

    See, you're more right about this than any of us would want to admit:

    It's a way for well-connected A-type personalities to get an ego boost and a cheap thrill ride.

    It's that way **precisely because** real manned spaceflight has always been under the boot of the military/industrial/political bureaucracy.

    Operational manned spaceflight means **trusting astronauts** and giving them alot of personal discretion....in the relative sense of course....a smart astronaut wants Mission Control to have thought of everything 3x...

    But instead, unfortunately, NASA's manned spaceflight has become a weird sort of academic/bureacratic obstacle course which ends in a roller coaster ride...

    That's how I see it...astronaut's call it "Waiting your turn"...

    I chose not to go that route with my brief military career...so I'll always wonder...however, **MY** dream was to walk on other worlds...see new horizons with my own two eyes...be it asteroid or Mars or moon return...something...

    I honestly feel like I would have to suppress alot of regret if I had worked so hard to become an Astronaut then had to 'get in line' with the others for my chance to play with a chemistry set in shiny metal alpine tent...

    I wanted to **fly** to space damnit!

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  23. Re:Of course a new record... by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    Fuck Political Correctness. If they're qualified, they're qualified but the Low Earth Orbit stuff, while risky, isn't as risky as going to the Moon or beyond. If Space is going to be a frontier for mankind then we have to be willing to take risks, invest in programs or industries that will get us there and go.

    NASA is full of bloat and horsecrap. Shit, take $5 out of the NSA budget and put it into a one shot trip to Mars. There's already volunteers and I'm sure Musk and SpaceX can supply cargo ships once they're on the planet. If they don't make it, we'll send another crew. That's what happened to explorers since time began, either they made it or they didn't but they did keep on trying if they failed. If NASA fails, it's a shitstorm and years of congressional testimony with self-appointed protectors of the public good making political points. Get rid of NASA and co-opt the JPL stuff and other good science out to the NSF.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  24. Somewhere, somewhen by Provocateur · · Score: 0

    Somewhere in a parallel universe, a Slashdot article shows
     
    ...and four of the astronauts are men!

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  25. Female astronauts: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    90 lb of recreational equipment.

  26. Re:Of course a new record... by Teresita · · Score: 1

    This is the age of tokenism and they clearly set out to pick 4 women. A simple statistical analysis of their candidate pool will tell you it's highly unlikely that half of the _best_ candidates would be women.

    Eight and a half months to and from Mars on a minimum energy ellipse, plus a number of additional months to line up the return launch window, and I betcha those male astronauts would be glad for the "tokenism" as you put it. Just sayin'...

  27. Sign with Space-X by Animats · · Score: 1

    Space-X is planning a manned flight in 2015. Space-X will have their own private astronauts. They'll probably be ex-NASA astronauts initially, test-pilot types. Once Space-X has flight crew, that will probably be the place to go.

    NASA still has 49 active astronauts, most of whom (but not all) have been in space. They don't have much to do. There are lot of recent astronaut layoffs and quits. NASA had over 80 astronauts at peak. That's not where you go if you want to go into space. It's surprising that they're training new ones, but they probably want to keep the training operation going.

    Being a former astronaut sucks today. It's not like being John Glenn. Ex-astronauts used to have a pass to NASA facilities, but one found out last year that his pass to HSC was no longer valid. Even worse, they're now portrayed as unemployed losers on TV. There was an episode of Blue Bloods on this, where a has-been alcoholic ex-astronaut is begging his old friend the police commissioner to find him a job.

  28. Re:Of course a new record... by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

    take $5 out of the NSA budget and put it into a one shot trip to Mars

    If we can get to Mars for $5 I'm all for it.

    If they don't make it, we'll send another crew.

    Better yet, send pre-killed astronauts. It'll save a fortune on life support and radiation shielding. Probably about as useful as the live ones too.

  29. Re:Of course a new record... by epyT-R · · Score: 0

    Agreed.

  30. Re:Of course a new record... by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    LOL, that should have been $5B... and don't be such a pessimist. When explorers went around the world in ships, there was disease, mutiny and other perils that they had to face. Some of the most successful explorers weren't seen sometimes for years during their journeys. Nowadays people want assurances that everything is safe, sanitized and is suitable for audiences of all ages. Screw that mentality because it's the mentality that government sponsorship buys you along with all of the other shit. Hell even the Astronaut Farmer made it to orbit. Okay that was a movie but if you have Scaled Composites building ships for a High Altitude Run, that means that LEO space is no longer the exclusive domain of governments or government funded transportation. All it will take is the right reason, the right group of entrepreneurs and some investment.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  31. Re:Of course a new record... by epyT-R · · Score: 1

    They might, but it's not the end of the world. See, there are men out there who care more about achieving something greater than just getting laid a maximum number of times.

    When you say 'just saying', it suggests you don't really believe the legitimacy of your own statement.

  32. "Riding Rockets" by Mike Mullane by Dusty101 · · Score: 2

    Just a quick book recommendation that addresses (amongst other things) the PhD vs. military tensions during the early period of the space shuttle program:

    http://www.amazon.com/Riding-Rockets-Outrageous-Shuttle-Astronaut/dp/0743276833

    It also candidly covers some of the pressures of being in the astronaut corps, warts & all. It's also by turns inspiring, tragic, irreverent and very funny, and not at all like many of the officially endorsed astronaut autobiographies. The author became an astronaut via the military track, and describes the mental and sociological adjustments he had to make as an (initially) male chauvinist jock astronaut, training alongside scientists and (shock horror!) women.

    Disclaimer: Not affiliated with the author in any way, just a fan of the book.

  33. JOKE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, we have astronauts again, even though we don't havea space vehicle. But, we can ride with those Russians whom we need, but don't exactly get along with.

    Then again, the way scaled down bottle rocket is ready to be stuck up some astronauts tail, to launch them into space, with no aparent reason other than to occupy the International Space Station.

    I know, let's give the astronauts a Guy Fawkes mask to take up with them.

  34. Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like hiring bus drivers when you DON'T OWN A BUS.

  35. Mission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's a male-female ratio of 1:1.

    Alex, I'd like to guess the mission now..

  36. Re:Of course a new record... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there are men out there who care more about achieving something greater than just getting laid a maximum number of times.

    There are also men who are able to care about multiple things and even at the same time.

    When you say 'just saying', it suggests you don't really believe the legitimacy of your own statement.

    No it doesn't; you suggest that. It suggests that the speaker is saying something, believing that the listener will not agree. Your pigeonholing comment suggests that you have cognitive dissonance.

  37. Obligatory Star Trek Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    McCoy: Admiral, wouldn't it be easier to put an experienced crew back on the ship?
    Kirk: Galloping around the cosmos is a game for the young, Doctor.

  38. Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Military monkeys are controllable where as Ph.D. are trained to think for themselves and out-of-the-box.

    Communist micromanagers like the ones that haunt NASA centers and the HQ in DC hate Ph.D.s.

    FUCK NASA

  39. Re:Good thing they selected some women by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Completely utterly wrong! The women are 100% equally capable in all areas period. The world has been telling me this for 35 years now and I completely believe it!