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.'"
Kerbal Space Program (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Kerbal Space Program (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly right. Mod parent up.
Most of NASA's astronauts are resigning because the one and only thing they are going to be doing the rest of this decade is flying to the ISS and spin around in LEO for extended periods. They will mostly be playing janitor and physiology lab rat assuming they can even get one of the precious few available slots.
SpaceX is a lot more interesting place to be an astronaut now. They will be working on Dragon, new launchers and aiming for Mars, instead of being a paying passenger in
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Hi,
I'm Kevin Spacey. As you can see from my picture [freakingnews.com], I'm a good astronaut!
I'm available for Soyuz missions on most weekdays, but I have little league commitments every second weekend, and I like to head back home after 5pm if possible during the week. So call me, and let's get this thing off the ground for the new year!
Hmm (Score:5, Funny)
Just finished a box of Kraft Dinner and I'm sitting here reading Slashdot... go ahead and mark a 'no' down for me.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
No chance. (Score:2)
Re:No chance. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
NASA, the world's leader in space and aeronautics. (Score:5, Informative)
Really? How do your 'astronots' get into space again these days? Oh....yeah. Hope that stings.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Really? How do your 'astronots' get into space again these days? Oh....yeah. Hope that stings.
Come on, which company doesn't outsources these days?
NASA is the world leader in what? (Score:5, Informative)
NASA, the world's leader in space and aeronautics
Say what?
In case you haven't noticed, NASA is the FORMER leader in space and aeronautics. Space access is now a Russian and European affair, and the Chinese are getting in the game. But the US dropped the ball: NASA is just an administration dedicated to sink money down the drain these days...
Re:NASA is the world leader in what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe if they /had/ the money to sink down the drain we wouldn't be having this problem..
Re:NASA is the world leader in what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a sick cosmic irony in flying to space on the rockets of your former competitors. Considering the cool stuff NASA was doing with Apollo there isn't an excuse for not having a moon base by now.
Actually, it's the same good excuse as for why nobody has built a permanent underwater city yet... not economically viable. Sure, we could do it, but, why? Actually, I believe that if we said "damn the accountants" and did it anyway (Lunar or undersea), we'd get a good ROI from all the spinoff from the R&D required to pull it off - that's how it worked developing heavy lift ICBMs with a "for all mankind" glossy PR campaign painted on them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I wish I could get even a small quantity of that "nothing." A nothing which funded hundreds of shuttle launches, both Voyager probes, several Mars probes, and dozens of miscellaneous projects. Amazing what nothing can get you these days.
Also, $15 billion (a year) isn't "nothing" even in congressional spending terms. One of the most expensive and advanced aircraft in the world (the F-22) cost only ~4 years at that budget. And that was stock full of pork.
Of course I would love to see them have more. Just poi
Re: (Score:2)
Just pointing out that even for the US budget $15+ billion is a fair bit.
I guess if .4% is a fair bit (15/3456 2010 budget).
Re: (Score:3)
What the graph title means by "2000 Constant $" is that the figures are adjusted for inflation.
Re: (Score:3)
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 s
Re:NASA is the world leader in what? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I can confidently say plenty of people would pay to watch that and you could get tons of funding haha.... maybe not governmental, but definitely tons of individuals would be interested :)
Re:NASA is the world leader in what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can confidently say no NASA money was wasted on hookers and blow, in space. yet.
Money has never been wasted on hookers and blow. Spent, yes, but not wasted.
Re: (Score:2)
+42
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose it depends on what you include. NASA is still a pretty strong first, with the European Space Agency in second, when it comes to scientific research in space, e.g. sending probes to other planets, the Hubble space telescope, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:NASA is the world leader in what? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is ANSI approved American chauvinism. It is standard practice to call anything American "the best in the world" without any data to back it up. Furthermore, if you dare question it you are considered "unpatriotic".
For example, traditionally people say that the USA armed forces are "the best fighting force in the world". While certainly the best equipped and nothing to sneer at, over the last 70 years the title "best fighting force" squarely belongs to the Viet Minh army which defeated, in sequence, the much superior armies of Japan and Vichy France (World War II), the French Republic (first Indochina war), the French Republic again (second Indochina war), the USA (Vietnam war) and the Chinese army (third Indochina war, admittedly considered a draw by some).
If you were to bring up that point at a bar, you might as well save time and ask for a wedgie to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S. got to the moon first. What more proof do you need?
Welcome to the 21st century. The moon landing was just over 40 years ago. So, as a non-US person, I'll give you that 40 years ago the US was first by a mile and achieved something truly awe inspiring. But that was 40 years ago and today I think it is far less clear that the US government is first...and even if it is it is barely first.
However I think in terms of the private space sector I think you definitely are in the lead...but it remains to be seen whether you'll keep it or whether the interests of
Re:NASA is the world leader in what? (Score:5, Informative)
The only thing the U.S. saved Europe from in World War II was being completely overrun by our ally at the time, the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union defeated Nazi Germany at Stalingrad and Kursk in 1942-1943 when the U.S. was barely even engaged in Europe. Germany's defeat was a foregone conclusion by the time the U.S. landed at Normandy in 1944. The U.S. helped win the war certainly but it simply wasn't the decisive force the Soviet Union was or that you are claiming.
Its true the U.S. helped turn the tide against Germany in World War I, but that was simply due to a huge infusion of fresh troops and supplies in to a war where all the incumbent armies and nations were spent. There wasn't anything exceptional about the U.S. troops, any infusion of a million fresh troops from anywhere would have had the same effect.
All things considered, you proved the grandparents point by flaunting how self infatuated and self inflating American's can be. The grandparent is correct, the Vietnamese were probably the most succesful military in the 20th century, and I would add the Afghans as a close second, because they have defeated every vastly superior force they've faced including the Soviet Union and the U.S.
Re: (Score:3)
The only thing the U.S. saved Europe from in World War II was being completely overrun by our ally at the time, the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union defeated Nazi Germany at Stalingrad and Kursk in 1942-1943 when the U.S. was barely even engaged in Europe. Germany's defeat was a foregone conclusion by the time the U.S. landed at Normandy in 1944.
England was done, they weren't pushing the front from the West. There may have been pressure from Russia to the East but without the invasion of Normandy and the threat from the West, Germany could have easily sustained it's control over the entirety Europe. Without the pressure from the South in Italy, Mussolini could've held his ground as well. Is Russia going to be able to free even Poland? Not a chance
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure I follow. While NASA is certainly having issues, none of the other programs are particularly stronger.
Russia: Riding the coat-tails of good design decisions many years ago (not that there's anything wrong with that, I wish we had a Soyuz-like design). Soyuz is simple and reliable and they can just keep on flying them without significant development costs. However, as indicated by their recent Mars probe their new development efforts have unfortunately decayed -- GRUNT suffered from not enough
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're taking a VERY narrow view of what national space agencies does. Yes, in terms of manned space flight, we've fallen a bit behind (though certainly not out of the game with future capsules in play). However, as some other posters mentioned, we are still doing a lot in terms of actual aeronautics and space exploration. The Mars probes and operation of the space station are the best known, but there's still a who
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Argentina (yes) is getting to space too! We're supposed to launch some rocket (Tronador II they call it. 28m high or something) next year.
As an argentinian, I'll believe it when I see it.
Height discrimination (Score:4, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Small print at the bottom of the job advertisement -
'Astronaut must show ability to hold out right-hand with thumb up, and know enough Russian to 'ask for a lift.'
Re: (Score:3)
know enough Russian to 'ask for a lift.'
"Odin jezda na kosmose, pozalujsta. Spasibo."
(I'm probably massacring that, and await the thousand irate Slavic Slashdotters bickering over my declensions)
GATTACA (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Came here to post this as well. And to think my mod points expired yesterday. Sorry I couldn't mod you up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
applicants (Score:5, Funny)
20/20 vision? Incredible shape? This is slashdot, that means none of us qualify.
Re: (Score:2)
like one's ability to work in small, confined spaces for hours on end
Do cubicles or basements count?
lasik and glasses / contacts are ok (Score:2)
lasik and glasses / contacts are ok
I just read this ad... (Score:3)
"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.
Job requirement addendum (Score:5, Funny)
* The excessively flatulent need not apply.
Re: (Score:2)
* The excessively flatulent need not apply.
Define "excessively".
Volume?
Frequency?
Decibels?
20/20 Vision? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Distant and near visual acuity: Must be correctable to 20/20, each eye
It only eliminates people with conditions that PREVENT them from seeing 20/20 WITH correction.
So your coke-bottle glasses are just fine, as long as you can see 20/20 while wearing them.
i would *like* to be an astronaut... (Score:3)
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.
Re:i would *like* to be an astronaut... (Score:5, Insightful)
While being fit is important for space vocations, I suspect most of the fitness requirements center around looking sexy for TV. The hiring guidelines for astronauts in the US and Russia were created during the biggest PR penis waving contest of the last century, and being sexy for cameras was very important for political reasons. I suspect there is a very large amount of beaurocratic inertia on those guidelines, and that many of the physical fitness reqs are not actually necessary for the job, but have been retained because being too picky is less troublesome than getting new guidelines through regulatory approval.
Have you ever tried to breathe while your extra 40 pounds of belly fat are pressing against your diaphragm at 4 Gs? Heck, the centrifuge-type ride at the US Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville had me struggling to breathe, and I'm sure it doesn't pull nearly that many Gs.
Re: (Score:2)
If it is anything like breathing under 6ft of water through a hose, I can do it. *shrug*
Re: (Score:2)
I specifically mentioned through a hose. As in, unpressurized.
A padi certified diver at 5atm uses compressed trimix. His lungs would never be able to exert sufficient pull to draw breath through an unpressurised hose at that depth. It would require strength to displace several hundred pounds of pressure per square inch. The human body is physically incapable of that. Deep water divers don't have that problem, because they use compressed gas.
The astronaut at 5Gs total effective body mass would be around 850
Re:i would *like* to be an astronaut... (Score:4, Interesting)
I hold a PADI rescue diver certification and have made several dives to 95+ feet. I have never used trimix. 5 ATM is 4 ATM of water pressure and 1 ATM of air. You add 1 ATM for every 33 feet so 4 ATM of water is 132 feet - the limit for recreational diving. If you want to go deeper or you want to stay down there for more than a few minutes you have to get in to technical diving and then you can learn to use trimix. Anyone with an advanced certification and a deep specialty can get to 5 ATM of pressure.
Also, 1 ATM is 14.7 PSI. So 5 ATM is 73.5 PSI. Still enough to crush you and to keep you from breathing through an unpressurized hose, but not hundreds of pounds per square inch.
Re:i would *like* to be an astronaut... (Score:4, Interesting)
Space Academy survivor here - It pulls 3 Gs.
I'm pretty far off to one end of the nerd-jock spectrum. I had no problems breathing, but it was interesting being barely able to lift my own arms: I couldn't lift them directly from my sides and had to increase leverage by bending them at the elbow and then pushing like a bench press.
While I don't think they need top-notch athletes, I can definitely say that physical fitness in the top few percentiles is a reasonable requirement for the job. There's no way I could reach up to punch an abort button in less than a second if it was necessary during launch.
Re: (Score:3)
For a supposedly smart person you are extremely ignorant of the physical rigors of high velocity travel.
Re:i would *like* to be an astronaut... (Score:5, Insightful)
nonsense! i've been traveling at about 66,000mph for decades. it isn't that hard.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean high delta-v travel. Not high velocity travel. When not accellerating or decellerating, there would be no noteworthy g-stresses on the body.
This is actually part of the problem with bone and muscle deterioration. Freefall induced microgravity actually *reduces* riggors on the body which promote healthy muscle and bone tissue. It is actually the pressure against bones and muscles caused by exerting them in a gravity well which keeps bones dense. A few studies with genetically bone atrophied mice
Re: (Score:2)
You mean high delta-v travel. Not high velocity travel.
How exactly are you going achieve the high velocity without accelerating?
Re: (Score:2)
Velocity does not imply accelleration. Accelleration does imply velocity.
Example: you are sitting in your chair. You are not experiencing accelleration. You are however, traveling at very high velocity. The earth is rotating, is orbiting the sun, and the sun is in turn orbiting galactic center. You are moving at fantastic velocities. You do not percieve any G-forces, because you are not experiencing delta-v.
This is why the above post is modded informative.
Delta-v is a function which measures CHANGE of
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect most of the fitness requirements center around looking sexy for TV
And minor issues like surviving the launch, not having your muscles and bones deteriorate too much due to micro gravity, surviving re-enrty after said deterioration...
Having to send up 3 janitors because the first two died is not very economical, nor is paying for excess fuel because the personnel ate too many pies.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming said "joe ordinary" janitor does not weigh 250lbs, and does not have high bloodpressure, he would not "die on takeoff".
As for the deterioration, I think you could benefit from re-reading my post, and doing some research. I specifically said long term habitation. A long term habitat would actively take measures to prevent such deterioration. Recent studies in anamal models shows that microtrauma to skeletal and muscle tissues are what stave off atrophy. See for instance, this study from 07.
http:/ [nih.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
The implication was not that 250lb tubs of lard should be accepted. The implication was that you don't have to be a 170lb addonas with washboard abs, and a pretty smile.
There are people with a "heavy" build that are perfectly healthy and fit. The physical characterisitics sheet disqualifies such people. (My dad had such an endomorphic build. The police dept he worked for introduced rules to combat police obesity, which enforced BMI requirements. Ended up lethargic and emaciated bones to reach the require
Re: (Score:2)
No, I label people stupid when they repeatedly do the same stupid things, and actively refuse education and correction.
People who revel in their ignorance, refuse to better themselves when given every possible opportunity, and fail at basic logic and show no inclination to improve themselves are people I consider stupid.
As such your assumption is wrong. Everyone does make mistakes, and I am no exception. Refusal to grow, improve, and learn on the other hand, is the hallmark of being stupid.
Disqualifiers...? (Score:3, Informative)
"Certain degrees are immediate disqualifiers".... TFA says that those degrees aren't qualifiers, not that they are disqualifiers. I'm sure if you had a degree in nursing AND a degree in a qualifying field, you wouldn't be disqualified...
Let me sum it up for 99.99% of you... (Score:5, Insightful)
Short answer: no.
Longer answer:
A) are you a military pilot with thousands of hours in high-performance jets? If not, forget anything resembling a "pilot" seat.
B) do you regularly publish world-class scientific papers, travel the world on exotic geology expeditions, and run highly successful educational programs all across the world? Or, any three or four similar accomplishments, before age 25... If not, you're not competitive in the "outstanding scientist" category.
C) are you a talented engineer or other professional? If so, you're more valuable on the ground than in front of the world television spotlight.
Sorry to be cynical, when I was 6 years old (1973) "astronaut" was a valid answer to the "what do you want to be when you grow up?" question. In 1973, space travel seemed like it was "going places," but, so far, it hasn't. You would have been much more realistic if you aspired to be a NFL quarterback or highly recognized movie star starting at age 6 in 1973.
Let's hope things are better than they seem for the future of space travel, now nearly 40 years later.
Re: (Score:2)
B) do you regularly publish world-class scientific papers, travel the world on exotic geology expeditions
Geology is not a real science [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Duh, of course geology isn't a real science. It's just a load of horsecrap.
A real scientist studies geonomy.
Re: (Score:2)
I would think that a lot of people have a better chance of being astronauts than Hollywood A-Listers, for example. The pool of people wanting to be in the film industry is so much larger. How many people really want to be astronauts? Certainly less than most of the state of California and all those enrolled in film schools, acting classes and the like.
Sadly not (Score:2)
I doubt they'd take asthmatics, myopics, or those without binocular vision, much as I'd love to.
Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
All that, and they still allow you in if you believe in god.
My article didn't have enough right stuff (Score:2)
When I submitted this story way back when: http://slashdot.org/submission/1856686/nasa-now-seeking-candidates-for-astronaut-posistio [slashdot.org]
Now ain't that ironic? So I guess I am really at the bottom of the astronaut list . . .
Re: (Score:2)
That's ok, if yours had been posted it would have been a trip. (as in, triple)
http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/11/15/1635240/nows-your-chance-to-apply-as-an-astronaut [slashdot.org]
Apparently Not! (Score:2)
Drugtest?? (Score:3)
Wow (Score:2)
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 leve
Worked with Astronauts at JSC (Score:2, Informative)
I worked in the MCC at JSC in the 1990s. Part of my job was installing software on the laptops taken into space and training every astronaut on the use of the software I was responsible for. That was until I pissed off the wrong astronaut and was replaced for the training aspects. Type-A is an understatement.
For the most part they seem like regular people, except that they are driven to succeed beyond a level that is healthy for most people. Their job is a competition every second of every day with their
This is weird (Score:2)
"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?
Flying & Drinking and Drinking & Driving (Score:3)
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)
Why does NASA need more astronauts? (Score:3)
NASA still has 57 astronauts on the active list. [nasa.gov] 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.)
Re:I'm 6'6" (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm 6'6" (Score:5, Funny)
That's a bit ambiguous. Would that impress the ladies or strike fear in the hearts of Chinese food buffet owners everywhere?
NASA Unit Conversions (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're at the back of line, leaving plenty of time get into shape.
But if they hired someone already in shape, that person would have plenty of time to get into even better shape.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I had mod points, you would get them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
no, it's just a moronic summary. those degrees don't qualify, but neither do they disqualify you. the reason for requiring a math/eng/sci degree is because you'd be doing systems maintenance; this is for a specific job track, not just generic "astronaut". it's a reasonable requirement imho.
Re: (Score:2)
"A lot more people (with a lot wider diversity) need to have a shot at making it into space (and we need more rides into space) for us to become a permanently space-faring and space-surviving species. I'm sorry, it's that simple."
We don't need them in space at the moment, and since sending humans long before unmanned and remote-manned tech humans MUST have to do anything useful in space is a waste of resources, diversity can wait.