GraphGuy - 24/9/2007 4:22 PMObviously NASA should only send women and minorities for the first few flights to end the monopoly white men have had on lunar exploration. And while we are at it, we should send anthropologists instead of fighter pilots and scientists to end the monopoly scientists and pilots have had on lunar exploration.Rest assured once we make it to Mars all will be better!Anyhow if I was riding a rocket to the moon I would hope that the person next to me was selected for ability and ability alone. If people make mistakes other people may die as a result.
GW_Simulations - 23/9/2007 2:23 PMIt is sexist to select women based on their gender, it is racist to select coloured people based on their skin colour. All astronauts should be treated equally, and selected on skill. You should not discriminate against the majority in order to protect the minority.
GraphGuy - 24/9/2007 3:22 PMObviously NASA should only send women and minorities for the first few flights to end the monopoly white men have had on lunar exploration. And while we are at it, we should send anthropologists instead of fighter pilots and scientists to end the monopoly scientists and pilots have had on lunar exploration.
luke strawwalker - 24/9/2007 9:05 PMQuoteGW_Simulations - 23/9/2007 2:23 PMIt is sexist to select women based on their gender, it is racist to select coloured people based on their skin colour. All astronauts should be treated equally, and selected on skill. You should not discriminate against the majority in order to protect the minority.You would think so, wouldn't you?? Sounds perfectly reasonable and eminently logical. However, here in the States we have this official insanity called 'affirmative action' and 'political correctness'. The symptoms manifest themselves in certain groups of people, based either on their race or their gender, or whatever other means or manner of differentiating and seperating people, demanding special rights or privileges based on WHAT they are, not WHO they are or how talented or educated (or lack thereof) they may be. The malady's sole treatment has been determined condescending pandering to the vocal wishes of said groups and their supporters, out of some sense of guilt over how their ancestors were treated or mistreated in the past, regardless of talent, education, or ability. Common sense has NOTHING to do with it. Sadly, talent and ability often has VERY LITTLE to do with it. It comes down to a political decision made for political ends. The more condescension and pandering is done for a group, the MORE pandering is expected by that group and every other group. It even extends to a crime done to one person being 'worse' than the same crime done to another person of a different gender, race, sexual preference, etc. It is insanity, but the inmates run the asylum over here... God I hope there is someplace in this world more sane than things are here!!!! JMHO! OL JR
jscott227 - 24/9/2007 10:19 PMQuoteluke strawwalker - 24/9/2007 9:05 PMQuoteGW_Simulations - 23/9/2007 2:23 PMIt is sexist to select women based on their gender, it is racist to select coloured people based on their skin colour. All astronauts should be treated equally, and selected on skill. You should not discriminate against the majority in order to protect the minority.You would think so, wouldn't you?? Sounds perfectly reasonable and eminently logical. However, here in the States we have this official insanity called 'affirmative action' and 'political correctness'. The symptoms manifest themselves in certain groups of people, based either on their race or their gender, or whatever other means or manner of differentiating and seperating people, demanding special rights or privileges based on WHAT they are, not WHO they are or how talented or educated (or lack thereof) they may be. The malady's sole treatment has been determined condescending pandering to the vocal wishes of said groups and their supporters, out of some sense of guilt over how their ancestors were treated or mistreated in the past, regardless of talent, education, or ability. Common sense has NOTHING to do with it. Sadly, talent and ability often has VERY LITTLE to do with it. It comes down to a political decision made for political ends. The more condescension and pandering is done for a group, the MORE pandering is expected by that group and every other group. It even extends to a crime done to one person being 'worse' than the same crime done to another person of a different gender, race, sexual preference, etc. It is insanity, but the inmates run the asylum over here... God I hope there is someplace in this world more sane than things are here!!!! JMHO! OL JR Extremely idealistic view of things. Of course in a perfect world no one would ever notice the race and/or gender of an astronaut. Only their abilities. Unfortunately, the world is far from perfect. Diversity, sadly, doesn't always happen without planning. The US practiced systematic exclusion since its beginnings. Only in its recent history has this begun to change. Or at least be "politically incorrect". These "insane" programs you so angrily speak of, are the result of our past. I for one believe ALL the astronauts are highly qualified for their missions. I feel very proud of the job NASA has done with diversity. I'm looking forward to the same when WE (and now I can mean "we" as in ANY American, unlike Apollo) return to the moon. I'm afraid we're still a century or two away from your world. BTW, the last time the term "coloured people" was popular you would never find any of them on a rocketship. Its politically correct to say "people of color".
BeanEstimator - 26/9/2007 4:52 PMI'm not against the "fighter pilots" but I don't quite understand why they would be choice #1, when the vehicle they are "flying" doesn't really need them to "fly".
Gary - 27/9/2007 4:44 AMQuoteclongton - 24/9/2007 8:47 PMWe should probably begin to phase out the term "manned" and begin using the word "crewed". The word 'Man' has it's origins in Anglo-Saxon times and means 'person' rather than a specific gender. It is therefore correct to use manned in place of crewed.However, I doubt history has much sway in these days of affirmitive action/positive discrimination (call it what you will).
clongton - 24/9/2007 8:47 PMWe should probably begin to phase out the term "manned" and begin using the word "crewed".
Jim - 26/9/2007 2:00 PMIt flies just as much as Gemini and Apollo which is operated like an aircraft which required pilotsAnd Gemini and Apollo flew like shuttle for all phases of flight except landing. Notice I didn't say reentry because Gemini and Apollo were flown through entry.The landing phase of the shuttle wasn't the only thing that required pilot skills and cockpit management
The computer components are at the heart of a question on a lot of curious minds: How will future astronauts fly this wingless, cone-shaped, blunt-bottom capsule?
“The short answer is with a stick,” says Skip Hatfield, NASA’s director of the Orion program, smiling. “The long answer is with lots of automation and redundancy.”
It turns out that future astronauts largely will let Orion fly itself.Seems to me that Orion will bring a heckuva lot more automation than either of the 2 previous capsules you mention. The balance between human and computer seems to be swinging toward the computer. Still you are right, the FA-22 and others like it utilize a ton of automation as well. It frees up the pilot to spend time on strategy and tactics, rather than looking at screens and flipping switches.How much "flying" does Orion really do on an ISS mission? A Lunar mission?
I'm not qualified to answer the question, so I ask it to get a better of understanding of how much "time at the stick" our new pilots will receive in Orion.
Another quote from the article:
Is there any resistance among fighter-pilots-turned-astronauts to taking Orion’s control systems away from humans?
“There’s no rub there,” says Dutton. “Our goal is to accomplish the mission. Software has a huge role to play. We’re interested in making the leap from the fighter pilot mindset. Spaceflight is exciting no matter what.”
Strike a balance between the need for a "fighter pilot" and the other qualifications needed for the mission. That's all I'm saying. (That and 6ft+ fighter pilots take up too much space, lol )
MKremer - 24/9/2007 9:45 PMQuoteGraphGuy - 24/9/2007 3:22 PMObviously NASA should only send women and minorities for the first few flights to end the monopoly white men have had on lunar exploration. And while we are at it, we should send anthropologists instead of fighter pilots and scientists to end the monopoly scientists and pilots have had on lunar exploration.I'm guessing you're probably being cynical, but regardless, I haven't read any responses or arguments here that even hint that NASA needs to implement some form of "affirmative action" program for astronauts. I *have* been reading overall opinions/ideas merely about people in general.I think what's being promoted is that any *human being* who has the desire and feels they can meet the qualifications should apply, and also that any facilities and privacy should be equal for any human onboard a spacecraft. *Whoever* meets the qualifications should be selected with a blind eye towards any otherwise physical/genetic differences. Then *whoever* passes further testing and training qualifications should be the people available to fly, and should also be selected as needed by qualifications/evaluations only.
- 2/10/2007 11:54 PMHow much "flying" does Orion really do on ... a Lunar mission?
OV-106 - 14/10/2007 3:28 AMActually, this is kind of a disaterous thread.