Astronauts with disabilities can apply to Europe's space agency for first time
cbc.ca
cbc.ca
Being an astronaut is a ridiculously selective process, it’s not like disabled people are missing out on something here that’s accessible to any non-disabled person. The opportunity for someone to get into space, whether disabled or not, is almost nil regardless.
It might be a "ridiculously selective process," but the specific restrictions within that process are, to some degree, arbitrary. They're certainly worth reconsidering and expanding from time-to-time as technology/safety improves, especially since we're getting closer to an age of commercial space flight where people with disabilities will have more access to space flight regardless of what any specific space agency will do.
There may be aspects of the selection process that are arbitrary, but not having physical disabilities isn’t one of them. As the article discusses, this would involve changing a number of aspects about the program to accommodate this one specific group. It’s not just a matter of “reconsidering and expanding” the restrictions, it’s clearly a major undertaking.
I am all for inclusion but as article states only 550 people or so went into space. That's an insanely low number. For comparison world wide on average there are 3000 deaths due to car crashes A DAY. Everyday 6x time people die that went into space ever.
I hope this program will not push out people that are a safer option for an astronaut in favour of a PR stunt. And that we are not wasting money on enabling someone's apex dream.
I will never play in NBA no matter how hard I will study and train I am too short. Its life.
And I am not campaining to have a a single player per team below 5ft because life is unfair.
They are already passing all merit based required standards.
Should then they have higher preference?
Its a research/science agency.
A usability study of space travel that is god knows how far out... well sounds like waste of money to me.
That's not the argument. The argument is barrier of entry is lowered to allow these individuals a chance. It's the same argument with the U.S. military and they have in fact lowered their standards to allow women into roles they couldn't get into before.
Now, if they don't change the barrier of entry and keep the same standards for disabled individuals I guess your take makes sense. However, if that's the case then you're going to have to admit it IS virtue signaling since they'd actually be changing nothing. You've put yourself in a catch-22.
And where does the accusation of virtue signaling come in here? It sounds like it’s not a superficial change they’re making. What’s the difference between “virtue signaling” and merely “a press release announcing policy changes”, exactly? Where is this needless cynicism coming from?
1. Let's say it's not a superficial "virtue-signalling" change which means it cannot be just widening their selection field as you suggested because that alone IS a superficial change unless... 2. They've decided that the they're going to change standards to make it easier for disabled individuals to gain entry which addresses the actual argument that candidates will be of lower quality and possibly cause worse results. 3. Your argument cannot logically hold water because you're presenting two cognitively dissonant ideas. For it not to be virtue signaling they would need to do more than just say they're opening up the program for disabled people. However, if they do that then #2 comes back into play and you've still lost part of the argument where you suggest it won't produce lower quality results.
The only way your idea holds water is if the disabled individuals are able to pass the current standards, which doesn't really make sense or they most likely wouldn't have those standards against certain disabled individuals to begin with.
>Where is this needless cynicism coming from?
This isn't cynicism it's just a logical thought pattern, stop injecting unnecessary emotions into it. No one wants a lower quality space program just so we can make some people feel better.
BTW I hope there are no hard feelings. Sometimes I just like arguing.
Possibly, but that's sort of how my mind works for better or worse.
Your argument is a a good one IF their currents standards are just not good. For example, maybe they have a blanket standard that people who've had panic attacks can't apply or something...
>You seem to think that this is somehow a wokeist ploy which will lower the “quality” of the space
This is because I can't think of any other good reason to make an announcement like this, other than a PR stunt, which I consider virtue signaling.
In the end we'd have to see exactly what criteria they have. The blanket statement that they're allowing people with disabilities in still seems like virtue signaling to me though. I assume they've got legal reasons for not being more descriptive, that way they can still deny entry for various "disabilities".
They will take 10 years teaching astronauts about everything from orbital dynamics to spacewalking to Siberian survival.
It's literally millions of dollars spent on one person, so you need to maximize the probability of success. It's why they go for perfectly healthy people, both physically and mentally. Can't have someone quickly out of breath, or someone who breaks down in a stressful situation.
Disclaimer: I don't know much about the typical protocols of astronauts and the engineering required for safe space travel, but I do know a thing or two about disabilities.
The vast majority of pilot applicants don't really need to be concerned with their vision:
- civil: will pass the vision requirements with correction to 20/20 near (the instrument panel) and far with glasses, contacts or surgery.
- US military: last time I checked, one service allows laser surgery, and the others are evaluating it.
I don't recommend eye surgery for civil pilots because of the risk of infection, sparkling, regulatory changes and changes in eye geometry in middle-age.
Note that DUIs and epilepsy are disqualifying, and heart problems usually make things difficult.
Source: pilot.
HUGE caveat here: They only allow eye surgery if they were the ones that did it. My brother had eye surgery when he was 3 years old, signed up with the Navy to be a pilot and only learned about this after he was signed. His vision is fine today and they let him be a naval flight officer, but they will never let him be a pilot.
For fighter aircraft they generally require 20/20 vision but permit correction for some candidates (particularly USAF Academy grads), usually up to 20/50-20/70 range. Many more people want to be fighter pilots than fly other kinds of aircraft so they can be picky here.
For heavies (cargo, bomber) and helicopters that are less popular they may permit that range of correction for all candidates, not just Academy grads.
For getting vision corrected, it was PRK only for a long time, no LASIK. I'm not sure the present rules. So long as your initial vision was within some range (I think better than 20/200 for a while there, again not sure of the current rules) and was corrected to 20/20-20/70 or so then you could qualify to become a pilot. Above 20/200 there are other issues with vision that start creeping in which causes them to ignore those candidates.
However, it depends on current need. If they feel they have enough candidates and current pilots then they'll be stricter on the vision requirement (and other waiverable requirements like being just above/below the height range), when they hit their next pilot deficit because they were moronic and created another bathtub curve they'll relax the requirements again. Happens every decade.
https://www.wndu.com/content/news/Blade-runners-The-future-o...
- They have a lower limb deficiency (for example, due to amputation or congenital limb deficiency).
- They have a leg length difference.
- They are of short stature (<130 cm).
Here is an account of astronaut Scott Kelly: https://www.businessinsider.com/scott-kelly-weirdest-thing-y...
Somebody must have studied this. Effect of G-forces on amputees, perhaps there's less in the way of nutrition and oxygen needs.
For that matter, I wonder what tests have been done to find natural differences in resource depletion depending on the individual, that sounds like an obvious selection point for a Mars mission or any other long-term isolation.