Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
NASA Space Science

Do You Have the Right Stuff To Be an Astronaut? 229

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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Do You Have the Right Stuff To Be an Astronaut?

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 22, 2011 @08:20PM (#38466680)

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

  • by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Thursday December 22, 2011 @08:21PM (#38466684)

    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...

  • 20/20 Vision? (Score:5, Informative)

    by camperdave ( 969942 ) on Thursday December 22, 2011 @08:35PM (#38466798) Journal
    20/20 vision? Like Daniel Burbank [spacefacts.de], Steve Frick [nasa.gov], or Don Pettit [nasa.gov]
  • Disqualifiers...? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 22, 2011 @08:35PM (#38466808)

    "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...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 22, 2011 @11:42PM (#38468020)

    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.

  • by demachina ( 71715 ) on Friday December 23, 2011 @02:26AM (#38468770)

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

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

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

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

And it should be the law: If you use the word `paradigm' without knowing what the dictionary says it means, you go to jail. No exceptions. -- David Jones

Working...