Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Space

Space Tourist Standards 301

Posted by michael
from the thrifty-brave-clean-and-reverent dept.
Snuffleupagus writes: "I found an interesting story at cnn.com about NASA's new standards for civilian space travel. It looks like if you have a history of drinking, lying and cheating you won't be going into space anytime soon, no matter how much money you have. Looks like I'll be stuck here on Earth for awhile." The guidelines for future space tourists are on NASA's site.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Space Tourist Standards

Comments Filter:
  • not true (Score:3, Interesting)

    by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland@yBLUEahoo.com minus berry> on Friday February 01, 2002 @01:59PM (#2938160) Homepage Journal
    somehow I don't think the russians will care.
    Of course if I say to NASA "I'll give you a billion dollars to send me into space, I have a funny feeling they wouldn't care much either.
    • Flamebait?
      to say a NASA standard will prevent anyone from going into space is ludicrous, and I was just pointing that out. sheesh.
  • Who then? (Score:3, Funny)

    by gokubi (413425) on Friday February 01, 2002 @01:59PM (#2938161) Homepage
    It looks like if you have a history of drinking, lying and cheating you won't be going into space anytime soon, no matter how much money you have.

    That kills the potential CEO and politician markets...
    • Yay! No Bill Gates in Space!

      Oh, maybe that could have been a good thing!

      --jeff

      • Gates could probably afford to buy his own decent-sized rocket and add a 1000sq ft. personal room on the space station complete with wetbar and jacuzzi-fuge.

        If I had bill gates $, i'd be philanthropic.. I'd just be extremely careful how that money is spent.

        "I'll give $x Billion for research and development of technology to go back to the moon"

        In my mind, we should go back just because its -there-, and america needs something to feel good about now.

        Though Gates has done some good things with his money.. He's opened/equipped a library in TN, to start with.

        I just wish we could robin hood ol' ellison. The man needs to be knocked off his high horse. But you won't see me in tights anytime soon.

        (We're men.. we're men in tights.. (MANLY MEN!) we roam around the forest looking for fights..)
        • Re:Who then? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by chinton (151403)
          If I had bill gates $, i'd be philanthropic.. I'd just be extremely careful how that money is spent.

          Yeah, cause good ol' Bill isn't [bbc.co.uk] philanthropic [idg.net] enough [unfpa.org]...

        • Re:Who then? (Score:3, Interesting)

          by autopr0n (534291)
          Though Gates has done some good things with his money.. He's opened/equipped a library in TN, to start with.

          Gates has done a hell of a lot more then that... He's spent more money tackling things like AIDS and vaccinations in africa and other poor parts of the world then most tech CEOs are worth.

          Not that he isn't a bastard, but I don't think he would really want to spend money sending people to the moon, it dosn't really help anyone and it's already been done.
        • If your rich, then your expected by society to donate money to charity, it doesn't make you a saint if you do, but it does make you unliked if you don't.

          I think they are just scared that some terrorists will pay, and then de-orbit the ISS into the pentagon... now that _would_ be funny :)
    • Its only a matter of time before emerging technologies like mass manufactures carbon nanotubes, and full-blow nanotechnology take ALL of us to the starts. Nasa can go eats its shorts.
    • "if you have a history of drinking, lying and cheating you won't be going into space anytime soon, no matter how much money you have."

      Hell, that kills *all* the markets.

      You don't get $30 million by being a nice guy.
  • by Joshuah (82679)
    looks like you all can not go.

    They should also include the ban on people who cannot figure out the presidential ballots. so, that cuts out flordia as well.
    • So I'm out. :-) But at least I have the consolation of knowing that Hollywood is out too.
    • Re:Sorry Alabama (Score:4, Redundant)

      by ajm (9538) on Friday February 01, 2002 @02:23PM (#2938320)
      Rules out Bush too on all three counts. (And also Clinton (for the cheating))
      • Rules out Bush too on all three counts. (And also Clinton (for the cheating))

        Hey if Dufus could not be bothered to show up at his base to fly really kewl military fighter jets what makes you think he would be interested in going into space?

        Besides they recently added a pretzel test to the medical. If you have a dodgy ticker the last thing you should be doing is going in for unnecessary G-forces.

  • lying (Score:4, Funny)

    by NeMon'ess (160583) <flinxmid@yahoo.cOPENBSDom minus bsd> on Friday February 01, 2002 @02:00PM (#2938165) Homepage Journal
    Lie? No NASA, I've never drank, cheated or lied in my life. Can I go into space now?

    • Yeah, but how many people who have the $20 million to blow can pull that one off?

      Bill Gates? Kenneth Lay? Ted Kennedy?

      Running out of smart ass one-liners,
      • Actualy, if you read the document, you'll see it actualy prohibits people with 'controversial' pasts. No no space for the Lay-master.
  • Profiling (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by Toby Truman (555615)
    What's next? People who "look" Middle Eastern can't go into space in case they fly shuttles into the Galactic Trade Center? Who is NASA to start calling the shots like this?

    And more interestingly, will they hold up once space is commercialized?

  • Yeah, Right (Score:2, Insightful)

    by gmhowell (26755)
    Just like if you are a fucking unrepentant drunk you don't get a new liver.

    Unless you are a baseball player.
  • Space Nazis (Score:5, Funny)

    by vapor2000 (59123) on Friday February 01, 2002 @02:00PM (#2938177)
    No space for you!
  • All this does is conform what i knew already, I"M NOT GOING INTO OUTER SPACE, or even close to it for that matter, hell, i've never even been in a plane. Just wait till you can't fly in an airplane until they confirm you don't lie, hack, drink, do drugs that are deemed illegal, or, for god's sake, have a criminal record. All of which i have done or do (i don't lie anymore, at least)
  • Y not the other way around, launch all the garbage up there and make earth a cleaner place :)

    NASA's new social engineering department...
    • Hey! I wanna leave this hellhole, at least for a short trip, to! (see my nick, for the humor impaired)

      Realistically though, where in hell would I come up with $20meg? Maybe the Fed or NASA should hold a lottery and one US citizen a year gets to go up. 'Bout the same chance as getting rich that way at least. Certainly more chance than I've got right now.
    • Hey - good idea! We could start a big rumour about Earth's impending doom, then make sure all the telephone sanitisers, hairdressers and marketing consultants are on the first ship...no wait, I'm sure this has been tried before...
  • It looks like if you have a history of drinking, lying and cheating you won't be going into space anytime soon

    Well thank GOD that's a new policy, as those traits fit just about every Mercury-Gemini-Apollo astronaut!
  • The Future (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Toby Truman (555615) on Friday February 01, 2002 @02:03PM (#2938200) Homepage
    This applies just to the space station, it seems, not to space in general. The thing to remember is that NASA has no real authority over space -- It's just space, it doesn't belong to anyone. They *do* have authority, however, over the facilities that we put into space, so they get to call the shots on the space station.
    • Re:The Future (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Lumpy (12016) on Friday February 01, 2002 @02:19PM (#2938288) Homepage
      please correct that further... They can control the United states modules of the ISS. The Russians would get mighty pissed if the US space angency tries to tell them what they can do with their property...

      This really only amounts to someone in NASA trying to justify their job and trying to make policy that is pretty much silly and un-warrented.
      • trying to make policy that is pretty much silly and un-warrented.

        Or to put it another way, it's NASA acting as they have done for the last 30 years.

      • Re:The Future (Score:2, Informative)

        by robhancock (136922)
        If you read the article, you'll see that these guidelines were developed and agreed upon by all the space station partners, including the Russians..
      • Re:The Future (Score:2, Informative)

        by hairyian (540318)
        This really only amounts to someone in NASA trying to justify their job and trying to make policy that is pretty much silly and un-warrented.

        Scenario 1:

        American tourist billionaire who happens to be an alcoholic enters space station with contaband. Get's slaughtered. Accidentally destroys an experiment by throwing up over it(being drunk in a weightless environment I'd image is quite different to being drunk on Earth). Bits of vomit infest critical systems.

        Cost of clean up... shit loads. New materials and shipping costs to relaunch the experiment, time spent restraining drunk passenger, time and material (and shipping) to fix/clean critical systems.

        Who's at fault? Who would pay for the cost of cleanup... the people responsible for the unruly tourist or the people who have had their equipment damaged? Not to mention the physical risks involved.

        Scenario 2:

        Russion mobster accidentally pushes button and vents the propellant to be used to counteract orbital decay. Tells nobody. The next thing they know a piece of debris from a lower orbit which they have just entered and damages the station.

        Again, who is responsible?

        At all times you must remember that the station is an international effort with partners from all over the world. It is in the interests of all involved to exclude 'tourists' who may pose a physical or financial threat to themselves /and other partners/.

        IMO such exclusions make sense: do you really want to put people who have psychological traits which may lead to unacceptable behaviour (alcoholism, drug abuse)? Do you really want people who's honesty has brought into question in the past to the point of criminal fraud?

        In the future, when the environment is safer, perhaps. In reality, these measures are there to protect the staff who are on board the station, the station itself and the financial and scientific commitments which have been made by the partners.

        Would you want to be on a space station, an environment where stupidity is easily fatal for yourself and others around you, with someone who you cannot completely trust?

        Ian Woods

      • This probably isn't a document saying what qualifications you must meet to get onto the space station.


        This is something saying what qualifications you must meet to get on the space shuttle going to and from the space station (which is also NASA property). This means they effectively do control tourists to the entire space station, not just the US modules.


        Until, of course, another country starts up in the space tourism industry. . .

      • The Russians would get mighty pissed if the US space angency tries to tell them what they can do with their property...

        No vodka for you, Komrade!
    • Re:The Future (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CrazyBrett (233858) on Friday February 01, 2002 @02:35PM (#2938386)
      The thing to remember is that NASA has no real authority over space -- It's just space, it doesn't belong to anyone.

      I remember when we used to say that about the internet too.

      Give it time.
      • Very true. And it'll be a very good day when NASA has as much power over access to space as the DoD has over the internet. But it is going to take a while. Entry into this particular market is a bit more expensive than getting access to a network backbone.
  • It looks like if you have a history of .. lying .. you won't be going into space anytime soon, no matter how much money you have

    Gee, sounds like Billy Gates, Sun, HP, the Govt themselves, Adobe, even slashdot, wont be headed to space. Any others?
  • by FortKnox (169099) on Friday February 01, 2002 @02:04PM (#2938209) Homepage Journal
    <SARCASM>These are the kind of rules that will never change</SARCASM>

    Come on. By the time you and I get into space (if we aren't too old), these rules will be changed over 100 times. Think about it.
  • by SVDave (231875) on Friday February 01, 2002 @02:07PM (#2938234)

    (d) habitual use of intoxicating beverages to excess

    Uh, yeah, we wouldn't want to have anyone who uses "intoxicating beverages to excess" to be on a space station with a bunch of Russians.
    • Uh, yeah, we wouldn't want to have anyone who uses "intoxicating beverages to excess" to be on a space station with a bunch of Russians.


      Well, someone needs to be sober enough to drive home.
      • Nonsense. Coming down from orbit is easy; even someone in a drunken stupor could do it.

        It's doing it without making too large a crater that's the hard part...

  • by www.sorehands.com (142825) on Friday February 01, 2002 @02:09PM (#2938246) Homepage
    The NASA guidelines rule out most of congress, the senate, and or the last two presidents.


    Congress may hold funding for NASA until there is an exception made for them.

    • by Tackhead (54550) on Friday February 01, 2002 @03:08PM (#2938542)
      > The NASA guidelines rule out most of congress, the senate, and or the last two presidents.

      Better yet...

      "and membership or sponsorship in organizations which adversely affect the public's confidence in the space station or its partners. "

      ...as I see it, it also disqualifies most of NASA ;-)

  • NASA != Space (Score:4, Insightful)

    by seanellis (302682) on Friday February 01, 2002 @02:12PM (#2938261) Homepage Journal
    Subject line says it all, really.

    Commercial spacelines wouldn't be using NASA facilities anyway; they're too expensive.
  • by Em Emalb (452530) <ememalb&gmail,com> on Friday February 01, 2002 @02:14PM (#2938270) Homepage Journal
    Other disqualifying traits: criminal, dishonest, infamous or notoriously disgraceful conduct; intentional false statement or fraud; habitual use of intoxicating beverages to excess; abuse of narcotics, drugs or other controlled substances; and....*drum roll please*.......

    membership or sponsorship in organizations which adversely affect the public's confidence in the space station or its partners.

    We have been saying for years that NASA is screwy...guess none of us will get to go.
  • Does this mean that the search for Bin Laden aboard the ISS can be cancelled?

    --
    Evan "Cheap Joke" E.

  • by corvi42 (235814) on Friday February 01, 2002 @02:19PM (#2938287) Homepage Journal
    You can be disqualified for:
    "membership or sponsorship in organizations which adversely affect the public's confidence in the space station or its partners."


    Does that mean that a millionaire with a passion for space might be banned for... say... being a member of Greenpeace, because they might think badly of McDonell Douglas for its role as an arms manufacturer?


    Maybe I'm being overly alarmist, but the implications that this clause can diqualify anyone who is even loosely related to anyone that does not wholeheartedly support large corporate power is a little disconcerting.

    • And just how many people who don't "wholeheartedly support large corporate power" do you think have $60 million to blow on a 2 week vacation?
    • Is it that hard to understand that this was probably intended as a catchall for the "Flat Earth Society" and "Lunar Landings were Faked!" crowds out for some "dirt?" Somebody who could be reasonably expected to be a major disruption... and possibly a safety threat if they think that the "vacuum" outside of the ISS is also fake.

      The bureaucratically vague wording is troubling, but the alternative (allowing them to arbitrarily reject candidates for unstated reasons) are worse.
      • and possibly a safety threat if they think that the "vacuum" outside of the ISS is also fake.


        That's easy enough to deal with. As soon as you get into orbit, put the guy outside the shuttle and tell him to take his helmet off if he doesn't believe that space is a vacuum. He'll either change his mind, or he'll be space debris. Either way he's not gonna cause any damage.

    • I know the natural response among slashdotters is to assume that the Evil US Government wants to ban Enlightened People in order to protect Evil Corporations.

      What you have here, though, is pretty standard diplomatese used in most high-profile joint ventures involving less-than-friendly major powers, for "we understand that some of our partner *states* frown on on concepts such as freedom, so in order to avoid a diplomatic row over issues unrelated to our space agenda, we will avoid sending up Taiwanese politicians, Tibetan lamas residing in India, Chinese slave labor opponents, etc." China refers to such people as "criminals who negatively impact confidence in the State and threaten public order," and the wording of this reflects their sentiments.

      It will almost certainly also prohibit people closely identified with any political cause, US or non-US, that is highly controversial (abortion, Israel vs. Palestine, etc.). To do otherwise risks having a bunch of activists protesting NASA over non-technical issues, and they have a hard enough time staying out of trouble as it is without asking for it.
  • We should build one huge spaceship and put all our hairdressers, telephone sanitisers, insurance salesman, management consultants, TV producers and public relations executives into it. Send them off to another planet somewhere. I'm sure they'll do just fine building a new civilization.
    • We should build one huge spaceship and put all our hairdressers, telephone sanitisers, insurance salesman, management consultants, TV producers and public relations executives into it. Send them off to another planet somewhere. I'm sure they'll do just fine building a new civilization.


      Again?

      -OR-

      That's how we got in this mess in the first place.
  • Now why ... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Lars T. (470328)
    would politicians want to go into space anyway?
  • .. you can always experience the rush of an piloting a US nuclear submarine during an emergency surfacing...

    >looks like if you have a history of drinking, lying and cheating you won't be going into space anytime soon, no matter how much money you have.

    Sounds like a slap in the face of George W. Bush. I *knew* NASA was full of liberals and hippies!
  • Interesting.

    Taking this thing to its logical extreme, one could easily imagine civil rights lawsuits regarding space access. I can just imagine the public debate on the Space Tourism Freedom act of 2020.

    The restrictions are, of course, meaningless, because the bottom line is that money is the only thing that will get you into space.

    This could make for an interesting precedent once we start deciding who can board the "ark" that we'll one day have to build to escape planetary catastrophe.



  • by PHAEDRU5 (213667) <[instascreed] [at] [gmail.com]> on Friday February 01, 2002 @02:23PM (#2938319) Homepage
    (f) membership or sponsorship in organizations which adversely affect the confidence of the public in the integrity of, or reflecting unfavorably in a public forum on, any ISS Partner, Partner State or Cooperating Agency.

    So, how about membership in the National Rifle Association? Veterans of Foreign Wars? Republican Party? Roman Catholic Church?

    If you've ever publicly criticised NASA, you're SOL.

    I mean, this single paragraph allows them to deny you for any or no reason at all.

  • by Triv (181010) on Friday February 01, 2002 @02:24PM (#2938323) Journal
    It looks like if you have a history of drinking, lying and cheating you won't be going into space anytime soon. Unless you're a celebrity or stinkin' rich, of course. And if you're both you might as well be strapped into that cockpot right now. If, to pick a name at random, Michael Jackson wanted to go into orbit, can you imagine NASA saying NO to the publicity? I can't. (although there is something to be said for the possibility of the National Enquirer headline of "NASA Refuses to Launch Well-Known alien Back into Space!" Bad Publicity as a front-page spread is a good thing) --Triv
  • drinking (Score:2, Funny)

    by asv108 (141455)
    No Drinking?


    Doesn't that leave out the entire Russian population?

  • uh oh. (Score:2, Funny)

    by i7dude (473077)
    "It looks like if you have a history of drinking, lying and cheating you won't be going into space anytime soon, no matter how much money you have."

    i sure hope they have different rules when it comes time to colonize...otherwise we'll have a hell of a time setting up a gov't on mars..."

    dude.
  • In ancient times, banishment used to be a form of punishment. I'm glad that now that we have the capability of shooting "undeseriables" into space, we've elected not to do that. I can't tell you how safe I feel down here on Earth now.
  • Remember that space tourist that went up with the Russians? NASA had a shit hemmorage over it, going so far as to label James Cameron a "true patriot" because he was willing to wait for NASA's blessing. That was Stage 1 in NASA's assholism. These restrictions are Stage 2. As much as I love the manned space program, I won't feel too bad when these bureaucratic idiots get slapped. Let's give the money to the Russians, instead.
  • Guess we won't be seeing "Survivor X: Earth Orbit"
  • Space credentials (Score:2, Insightful)

    by PaulGibson (552064)
    Well it looks to me (in the NASA document) much like the security clearance background check stuff that many of my friends had to go through to work for DoD related companies. Basically, the lifestyle stuff is there so that they don't get surprised. Of course NASA has some other concerns, including general health, because they don't want any medical emergencies up there, which means that Joe Beergut does not get to go.

    However, as with a security clearance, the fact that you smoked a bit of weed and took some mushrooms along the way probably won't hurt. If you have a history of abuse ala Tyson, then perhaps they won't want to include you in a crew that gets to spend weeks in a sardine can together. It just makes good sense.

    Sometimes you really just want the wheat

  • It seems that NASA is taking their cues from RIAA, thinking that if they tighten the restrictions then more people will support the program. Someone should tell them that it isn't cartmanland they're running!

    It's amazing, free markets ALWAYS increase demand, but all big organizations fight free markets every chance they get...
  • by Uttles (324447) <uttles&gmail,com> on Friday February 01, 2002 @02:48PM (#2938444) Homepage Journal
    If you have a history of lying, drinking, and cheating... then you'll probably come up with a way to fool NASA into believing you're a wholesome person!
  • by mrroot (543673) on Friday February 01, 2002 @02:48PM (#2938445)
    I wonder how much additional money it would generate if the govt had a "lottery" for space travel instead of a you-pay-you-go type thing. I bet they could work it out to generate alot more money per space tourist that way, while giving us ordinary citizens a chance to go.
    • I agree, buy a ticket for a buck, then if you when you get either a percentasge of the money, or a trip to space. and if you don't meet the health requirements, then you get the money.
      Have the drawing once a year. I know I'd probably buy a few hundred tickets over the course of a year.
      If the lottery pool isn't enough, you could always auction off the winning ticket!
      • You're missing the obvious, if the goal is to make as much money as possible. If you're NASA, hold the lottery; get a few tens of millions of dollars. But RIG the lottery so a minion of yours wins; then have the 'winner' ALSO auction the ticket on ebay, and get a few more millions right there. To the end-purchaser, it's the same as just buying the ticket from NASA directly, but there's an extra profit-making step of scamming the whole country!
    • (one of)the biggest problem with this is that randomly selecting people to go into space is not only silly, it's downright DANGEROUS.

      Sorry to burst some people's bubble, but obese people almost certainly cannot go into space, not when you're paying by the pound. Incredibly tall/wide people probably still can't fit into seats/suits/you name it (this was a major issue with early Astronaut selection).

      I'm also pretty sure that NASA wouldn't want to send up anyone with intense psychopathic tendencies (to use hyperbole, but I can think of dozens of mental health issues that would keep people out of space).

      NASA would pretty much have to set up a 'pre-selection' session for the lottery - otherwise, you'd have huge numbers of entirely unsuitable candidates winning (offhand, the obesity rate in the US is at least 20%.. never mind every other factor) who would then be disqualified and the draw re-done. And who would want to pay the cost of the physical/mental checkups required? Me and most of Slashdot I'm sure, but your average Joe?

  • by fizban (58094)
    Guess Dubya and his whole family, as well as the rest of the political world won't be taking any trips to the Moon in the near future. That's okay with me. We can just leave here to blow each other up while the rest of us useful people head to the stars.
  • by Mojo Geek (28926) <bpatrick@itpatrick.net> on Friday February 01, 2002 @03:18PM (#2938596) Homepage
    if you have a history of drinking, lying and cheating

    I'm gonna stake my claim on the boolean "and". I haven't cheated anyone.

  • Considering that 99.5% of us are automatically ruled out because we don't have 20 Mil. of disposable income to plunk down for the ultimate joy ride.

    Hmmm, "Ultimate Joy Ride" sounds like fodder for a future /. poll.
  • by ch-chuck (9622) on Friday February 01, 2002 @03:37PM (#2938699) Homepage
    At least from what you pick up from "The Right Stuff" drinkin' and driving was an admired ability amongst the eary crews. Not a very good role model tho, not at all.
  • Oh please... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by joto (134244) on Friday February 01, 2002 @03:43PM (#2938728)
    This is just like the requirements for a basic security clearance. It's not like you can't ever have tasted alcohol (few responsible people haven't).

    They look up your police records and military records, interview you, and some of your (earlier) employers, family, and so on, to try to determine if you are a responsible person. If you aren't, then they won't risk the lives of other astronauts, important space research, huge amounts of money, etc, just to get you into space.

    This is nothing but common sence. You shouldn't trust untrustworthy people. I fail to see the logic behind allowing Osama bin Laden on the space shuttle just because he has enough money.

  • I just scrolled through the comments and I can't beleive I don't see at least one post legitimizing some restrictions.

    Folks, this isn't MTVs "Real World in Space!" At least initially, anyone who goes up into a space station is going to part of a pretty small and isolated human community. It's going to be important that members of that community get along. Lying can be big impediment to that. Cheating on a spouse says that you're willing to break pretty some big promises. And while alcohol can provide some great bonding moments (camraderie from shedding some inhibitions, and later, maybe even sharing vomit and hangovers. I know people who've hooked up because of shared vomiting experiences), it also impairs judgement, sometimes makes people much more volatile than they'd normally be, and carries a temptation for abuse that's too strong for many people (especially when in isolated and stressful situations).

    There's no guarantee, of course, that honest, sober, and relatively chaste people are going to get along. But it doesn't seem that odd to me that NASA would consider the human dimension of a space community and try to select out traits they think might doom a community to disintegrations.
  • Not just NASA (Score:3, Informative)

    by markmoss (301064) on Friday February 01, 2002 @04:16PM (#2938883)
    These aren't just NASA standards, they were agreed on with the international partners. See the Washington Post's article: [washingtonpost.com]"More than two years in the making, the criteria allow Russia, the United States, Canada, Japan or the European Space Agency to select station visitors."
    • I'm wondering just how well the international partners are going to agree about the interpretation of those rather subjective standards, though. For instance, considering the stories I've heard about Russians and drinking, over there "alcohol abuse" probably means letting vodka go to waste. 8-)
  • So how can you be successful enough to afford the trip without lying, cheating, or stealing somewhere along the way?
  • by mibat (209183) on Friday February 01, 2002 @06:17PM (#2939514) Homepage
    I skimmed over the guidelines for selection in this document and they interestingly look VERY similar to the guidelines for a fed security clearance. (including those about drinking and moral misconduct, which I think are there to prevent blackmail being used to get classified information out of you) ie, if you are working at a military contractor, etc. I wonder if there's any correlation?
  • This could be a ploy by NASA to try to convince teenagers not to drink, lie or cheat if they want to be an astronaut. I don't know how well it would work, because most youth don't want to be astronauts right now, but it isn't a bad idea.

    Just thought I'd submit this possibility for consideration.
  • Why should NASA tell other enterprises what people they should send into space? NASA wont be a space tourist company anyway...
  • If only governments would disallow such people to breed, life on earth would be so much better.

To be a kind of moral Unix, he touched the hem of Nature's shift. -- Shelley

Working...