Astronauts with disabilities can apply to Europe's space agency for first time(cbc.ca)
cbc.ca
Astronauts with disabilities can apply to Europe's space agency for first time
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/astronauts-physical-disabilities-esa-1.6013038
83 comments
This is a bad take and arbitrarily discriminatory, and I don't like this sort of reactionary anti-virtue signalling I've been seeing a lot on HN recently. You did not establish that the "new challenges" are especially difficult to overcome, nor that they're not worth undertaking. There can be a lot to learn through this process, and that by itself is valuable. YOU seem to believe that there is only marginal practical benefit, but I can't quite understand why you believe that merely increasing the pool of applicants is a bad idea [and the European Space Agency seems to disagree with you as well]. I'm curious on the specifics of your interpretation.
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.
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.
My first gut reaction to this initiative is a bit negative. There are handful astronauts in the world for a reason. It is probably the most challenging environment where you need to be at your peak both mentally and physically.
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.
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.
Lol, as if you or I can meaningfully tell the difference between a "PR Stunt" and a valid hire. If you see an astronaut with a prosthetic leg in the next five years, are you going to just automatically presume that they are unworthy of the position? I certainly wouldn't arbitrarily belittle an astronaut like that -- doing so would be shameful IMO.
If the candidate can complete the regular training and other standard screenings, I'm good.
100% agree, but then whats the point of this program?
They are already passing all merit based required standards.
Should then they have higher preference?
They are already passing all merit based required standards.
Should then they have higher preference?
This is in part a study to help find out what disabled people might need in space to better inform future designs to accommodate their needs. Space travel isn’t getting less common so it’s a good idea to prepare for this. This is a good thing.
Commercial space travel should not be within a purview of ESA.
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.
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.
I didn’t say that increasing the pool was a bad idea. In fact, I said it’s a benefit, albeit a marginal one because it’s a relatively small % of people we’re talking about here. The problem is that it comes at a cost. Furthermore, while we’re on the subject of pool increase, it’s also vastly lowering the selection pool if they favor people from this small group.
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.
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.
[deleted]
You can choose to believe that if you want. I don't see any meat to your argument beyond mere hunchery. For example, you merely identify that a "cost" exists, but you didn't bother to claim it was a meaningful cost in the context of the broader space program.
>I can't quite understand why you believe that merely increasing the pool of applicants is a bad idea
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.
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.
That’s absolutely the argument... What other argument was there? You didn’t actually point it out, unless your minor rephrasing of one sentence of what I wrote somehow invalidates my point.
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?
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?
I feel like you're not fully thinking this through-
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.
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.
You’re overthinking it. This is a study to better inform the needs of disabled people in space. You know, for the future. I happen to think that research about the types of accommodations needed for people with disabilities is valuable, and the earlier we learn the unknown-unknowns here the better. You seem to think that this is somehow a wokeist ploy which will lower the “quality” of the space program (whatever that’s supposed to mean), so you’re making a bunch of hypothetical points that actually don’t matter and trying to “logic” your way to victory with a bunch of flimsy premises.
BTW I hope there are no hard feelings. Sometimes I just like arguing.
BTW I hope there are no hard feelings. Sometimes I just like arguing.
>You’re overthinking it.
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".
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".
[deleted]
I’ve always wondered if NASAs obsession with “perfect astronauts” really had enough merit to warrant itself. My personal conspiracy theory was it was more about not losing face to the USSR then it was any practical need.
Sure it does, and it has nothing to do with another country.
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.
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.
I always thought of it as a tolerances thing. The stronger/fitter (for certain definitions of those words), and the smarter (ditto), the more slack you have built into the system. On the average space flight, an average person is just fine, but when things go sideways, it's better to have someone with very exceptional abilities. That's also not to say that seeking "perfect" astronauts selects for the most ideal abilities, but that was my thinking about what they were going for.
Given the large number of people wanting the job and the low number of positions, pruning it in even a tiny-merit way seems like a nice strategy to employ. It's not like you're cutting anyone who could be predicted to be a gamechanger; there's only so much utility you can get out of an astronaut, I think.
[deleted]
This is great forward-thinking. It's rarely too early to think about people with disabilities. Setting up some structure to allow reasonable accommodations early will help avoid a need to later 'open up' space travel to others when it [hopefully] becomes more commonplace. This sort of research ought to be done now while we're still in a nascent phase of space travel.
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.
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.
My dream of going into space was shattered when I got the news that my heart was enlarged and I needed surgery to replace my aorta valve. Between the life-long dependence on blood thinners and the already-weakened heart, I don't think I'll ever be able to go.
Are you me? I've always wanted to go into space and I have the same heart condition. I found your blog where you posted about it further and I get the same migraines too lmao. I'll shoot you an email. Mine is my username at gmail. Cheers!
Many people can’t become pilots (pre requisite) because of poor eye sight.
Well, the full story is ...
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.
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.
USAF's pilot vision requirements shift based on need and also aircraft type (which relates to number of applicants).
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.
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.
> - US military: last time I checked, one service allows laser surgery, and the others are evaluating it.
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.
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.
[deleted]
Reminds me of climbers and runner without real legs that can out perform the legged due to their use of carbon fiber.
https://www.wndu.com/content/news/Blade-runners-The-future-o...
https://www.wndu.com/content/news/Blade-runners-The-future-o...
The Atomic Rockets website (which is a great resource in general) has an interesting section about disabled astronauts: http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/crew.php#id--Cr...?
For an astronaut could having legs be a relative disability? It seems to me that ableism is a very good thing with respect to choosing astronauts, but different in micro- than in macro-gravity. A disabled earthling could make an unusually able spaceling.
Some forms of disability could be useful in the context of space exploration. For example, using colostomy bags could make longer spacewalks possible and also remove space toilets altogether.
This feels a bit played up. They are allowing short people to apply to be astronauts; I wouldn't consider that championing inclusion and diversity.
I'd say we don't let the good be the enemy of the perfect. This is what the article said and at least include more people with disabilities than it did before, isn't that good?
- 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).
- 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).
You ignored the first bullet of the three, which was: "They have a lower limb deficiency (for example, due to amputation or congenital limb deficiency)"
Technically, those are short people, too.
You could argue that an optimum space-human has amputated legs.
Astronauts hook their feet under handles to stay in place while doing things on the I.S.S. They do this so extensively that they develop callus on top of their feet and loose it on their heels. Once back on Earth walking without hardened skin on the heels is said to be painful until they have re-developed it.
Here is an account of astronaut Scott Kelly: https://www.businessinsider.com/scott-kelly-weirdest-thing-y...
Here is an account of astronaut Scott Kelly: https://www.businessinsider.com/scott-kelly-weirdest-thing-y...
That's interesting but doesn't sound like much of a prosthetic to add to the proposed legless astronaut corps(tm).
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.
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.
Prosthetics might work for someone missing the lower portion of their leg(s), but I don't think it would work for someone with a congenital limb deficiency. If they have no control of their legs, bolting on some extra hardware wouldn't do much.
I read a scifi story as a kid where the protagonist was paralyzed. in space, her disability actually gave her an advantage because she adapted much more easily to moving through the station.
I'm blind and though a big cosmos fan, I know that I'm not fit for the job and would not expect to be included. However, this might not be true for people with other disabilities and if they are fit for the job, it is pretty logical the requirements to be adjusted in order to allow them to participate.
In terms of novel space exploration, it would only make sense to compose a crew of smaller individuals who require less space, consume less food, produce less waste etc. There's a strong case to be made that a first time Mars mission, or similarly challenging feat, would be best undertaken by an all-female crew.
Gagarin did it before it was cool.
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.