On a related note, there is an excellent anime series on what it takes to become an astronaut called "Space Brothers" [1]. It's about two brothers, the younger becomes a NASA astronaut, while the older tries to catch up by applying to join JAXA (Japanese space agency). It's quite accurate in its portrayal of qualifying examinations and tests, yet still is entertaining to watch.
Both brothers are JAXA astronauts. But yes, double recommend. It is a prime time anime so do not expect something as adult-like as what you watched in University. Over all a great show with good characters.
I found the animated show to be unwatchable, but really enjoy the manga. Probably because it was very easy to plow through the less interesting parts quickly.
> 5 hours is more than enough of a chance to give a series.
Five hours is more than enough. Five hours is enough time for the writers to take a genre, deconstruct it, salt the earth, collect all the pieces in one place and build a bonfire, dance around the flames thrice widdershins while invoking ancient and mysterious rites, take off and nuke the site from orbit (just to be sure)... and finally, on the site of the wreck, rebuild it all again more beautiful than it had ever been, in the process winning every award in the book and forever altering the future of the genre.
But then, maybe I've just been utterly spoiled by Puella Magi Madoka Magica (12 episodes, 300m). :b
... of Madoka? Makes sense. The first two-and-three-quarter episodes deliberately conformed to the banal clichés of the genre, as a trap to snare unwary tween girls into thinking there would be lots of happiness and sparkles, instead of death, angst, pain, death, and more death. :P
Being an astronaut sounds pretty cool, but personally I don't even feel very comfortable in a plane, hence sitting in a rocket with 500,000 kg of explosives underneath me is not something I would really consider doing, independent of the fact that it's of course doubtful if I would even physically/psychologically qualify for such a task. I hope though that as I get older space travel will become both safer and more affordable, because I would really love to see our planet from outside its atmosphere, even if just for a minute.
The stated minimum requirements and the actual minimum-to-have-a-shot requirements are different, and they are different now than they used to be. Nowadays astronauts training for the ISS need to be generalists capable of doing everything. During the Space Shuttle era astronauts flew for a couple weeks at a time, and they were able to specialize in certain aspects. This meant that some people focused on EVA (spacewaks), some on robotics, some on flying the Shuttle, etc. Now, amongst other things, everyone needs to be EVA-capable, which means everyone needs to be physically capable of operating inside the space suit. I train astronauts to do EVAs, and working inside the space suit is a very physically demanding job.
"Salaries for civilian Astronaut Candidates are based on the Federal Government’s General Schedule pay scales for grades GS-11 through GS-14"
From http://www.federaljobs.net/salarybase.htm#SALARY_TABLE_2015-... it sounds like civilian astronaut salaries then range from $51k to $112k per year. That feels pretty low, but presumably astonauts assigned to a mission can make money through public speaking, etc.
>astronauts assigned to a mission can make money through public speaking
As somebody who knows many current and former astronauts (lived a stone's throw from JSC for 20+ years)... I can assure you that astronauts picking up money for appearances is fairly uncommon. A majority are incredibly low-profile, publicity-wise. If they show up to an event to speak, it's almost always because they personally feel compelled to advocate for research, education, the space program in general, etc.
That's not surprising at all. From an economic perspective, people choose jobs to maximize utility, salary being just one component of that. They don't have to pay them that much because being an astronaut is literally one of the coolest jobs ever.
In addition, the demand for astronauts is astronomically low :), so the supply of people wanting to do it is very high compared to demand.
Think about scuba diving instructors. They don't make that much money because it's such an awesome job. If I could make 150k a year doing that, I would quit my job in a heartbeat, move to Hawaii and never look back. However, they don't because if they started paying that much, a million other people would do the same, flooding the market with scuba instructors which would shift the salary back to what it is now.
Plus a minimum 14% cost-of-living adjustment, plus benefits associated with a job with the Federal government. Assuming you've got a PhD that immediately puts you in the GS 13/14 range, which is about $80-112k plus the above.
Nobody applies to be an astronaut to get rich, but for a well-educated person $150k in pay and benefits is absolutely possible, which is a great paycheck, especially in Houston.
Having a PhD offers no such guarantee in the federal government. I have a GS-11 friend who has an aerospace engineering PhD, granted only 4 years into her employment, but still no guarantee.
The GS grades are not about education, but job responsibility. The grade for a given position also depends on the agency you're working for and where. An engineer with the AF working for ACC might be a GS-11, but a GS-12 if they switched to AFMC, or GS-13 if they did the same job with AFMC at another base.
> Having a PhD offers no such guarantee in the federal government.
I misread the GS site, you are correct.
Still quite a bit above the median in terms of salary, which was my only real point (and that if you are primarily motivated by money, advanced degrees and Federal government employment is probably not in your future, anyway).
Working for the federal government has some solid perks including great pension plans. Having grown up in DC, my parents really hoped I would go work for the government. Instead they got an entrepreneur!
As for post-astro careers: my understanding is that a number of astronauts have gone on to academia.
For anyone who hasn't already read it, I highly recommend 'An Astronaut's Guide to Life on Earth' by Chris Hadfield. It's a highlt entertaining read with lots of anecdotes from his training and time in space. The book really gives you an appreciation for the immense levels of dedication and focus required to become an astronaut. I also think his work ethic and positive outlook on life is pretty inspirational for anyone, not just those interested in space.
It surprises me very much. I understand that many in tech may not have close friends from outside tech, but family? Do so many people are second-generation technologists, so they don't end up in those uncomfortable situations where they avoid the topic of salaries near their siblings, parents, or SO?
It's interesting to see a little from the other side too. I'm in tech, but not "SV pay" scale. Meanwhile many of my friends are in tech at the more SV-like pay scales. It's sometimes surreal the things they talk about and afford. I usually just smile and nod and many of the not-close friends aren't even aware (I presume) that there's a difference.
Does anyone know what the "anthropometric requirements for both the specific vehicle and the extravehicular activity mobility unit" are? I assume there are both maximum and minimum heights, but weight probably isn't a direct factor (just a factor as it affects your girth). Anyone have numbers?
I watched a press conference about astronaut selection from the 60s. The press mostly wanted to know about religious persuasions and marital statuses which felt like major culture shock to me.
You might like to read The Right Stuff [1], the film is good too but the book goes into quite a bit of detail on how the astronauts were seen as representing the nation.
Since the end of the shuttles in 2011 only four US astronauts go into orbit a year. Basically NASA has two of six astronauts on the space state, for an average of six month terms.
While the ISS was being constructed as many as 20 astronauts went into space a year, for about a week.
Why interesting? Any NASA astronaut who goes to space currently has to work with Russians on the ISS, and gets there via a Russian launch vehicle. Basic knowledge of the language is a must, if for nothing other than "don't press the button labeled 'self-destruct' in Russian".
As soon as I read that part, I wanted to apply. I am as much as an American as it gets: some of my ancestors fought in the Revolutionary and American Civil wars. But I speak Russian fluently and I've been living in Siberia for a few years. As soon as I read that, I realized that I would instantly be "best buds" with the Russian astronauts on the ISS because I don't just speak their language: I also (kind of) understand their culture.
Unfortunately, I don't have any experience flying jet aircraft. So the challenge is meant for someone else...
I don't know how the taxonomy of degrees works in the US, but wouldn't computer science be considered either a mathematics or an engineering field? Also, there is a list of engineering and science-related degrees that are excluded, and computer science is not on it...
It's generally in the engineering school at universities. A CS degree might make the qualifications it's just that there's no reason to send a programmer to space right now. Maybe there would be a need on a Mars mission where you can't just ssh in from the ground but they'll probably want someone with another applicable degree.
They don't need a reason to send a programmer into space.
What they need is to send people into space that are smart enough to understand the myriad systems around the, maintain them, and conduct the various experiments and other tasks planned. Basically, they're looking for smart people that they can train to have the needed skills, rather than people that have the needed skills outright. (Since nobody actually does.)
A pure CS degree might put you at (an overcomeable) disadvantage, since they seem to value the ability to do experimental science. But it can and has been overcome, see:
True. From my perspective (I train astronauts and work in Mission Control) it's most important to be able to quickly learn a wide range of general engineering principles. You need to be able to understand how the International Space Station works, which in some cases requires a computer background and in other cases more of a mechanical background (and everywhere in between). Astronauts are constantly in some training program learning (or re-training) some aspect of their job. In some respect they are full time students.
Later than people think, maybe? My point is that they're expect to have a successful career first, rather than it being a job people apply to directly from college or grad school.
If there is an engineering school/college, then yes. Otherwise its in the liberal arts and sciences, usually (my personal preference, TBH). Look at the University of Oregon vs Oregon State, for example.
Essentially. Backups and updates are much more hands-on with Windows than with Linux. There exists bad software for both Windows and Linux, but there are more (seemingly..) awful applications running on Windows systems: ancient apps that are still being updated several times a year (no package manager to help), the deprecated databases those applications use...
There are good configuration management tools for both systems, and both systems are good at what they do. Just seems there's more awful things running on your average Windows server.
It should if you hire competent ones. One guy can maintain many many more Linux servers than he could Windows servers.
I had a job at an IT outsourcing shop several years ago. Before I got there, one guy administered some 50 Debian / Ubuntu servers. They needed two Windows guys to maintain half as many Windows servers.
Its high time that humanity moved past the notion that sending meatbags into space is a good idea. Pampering to Star Trek fans has squandered trillions of dollars pursuing the "meatbags in space" chimera and all they have to show for is a crammed toilet in LEO (soon to be decommissioned since all the "bubbles in space" experiments than 10 year-olds can conceive have been carried out) and the abominable space shuttle. Had robotic exploration being pursued instead we would have had thriving Lunar and perhaps asteroid belt mining by now. What's more, at this point it would have made economic sense and it would create wealth rather than destroy it. Some grandiose ideas are fun but they get you nowhere, and leave you worse off as they represent a gigantic misallocation of capital. The Pyramids for instance, did not propel humanity in an era of skyscraper building.
July 1st 1492: It's high time that humanity moved past the notion that sending meatbags onto the oceans is a good idea. Pampering to fans of stories about shorter routes to Asia has squandered a great many dubloons pursuing the 'meatbags on the waves' chimera and all we have to show for it is a severe case of scurvy and a bunch of rotten timber. We already know how to get to Asia overland, why on earth would we bother finding a longer, more dangerous and probably slower route around the other side. Besides, everybody knows the Earth is flat.
Some grandiose ideas are fun but they get you nowhere and leave you worse off as they represent a gigantic mis-allocation of capital.
Relying on analogies to guide one's thinking is so common and so wrong, I guess there must be some Latin phrase to describe it. Plus, as I am sure you are aware, the attempted analogy is broken on more points than I care to enumerate.
It's a friendly way of telling you that your position is bull-shit. Not everything we as humanity can do should be looked at through the lens of immediate utility. If that point passed you by then apologies I'll try to make more watertight analogies in the future.
The ability to set up colonies in space has very little to do with star trek fandom (I can't stand it so no 'star trek' fan here). It is a way to expand our envelope, to reduce our viewpoint of Earth as a special place in the universe (it's only special to us right now) and it will, in the longer term yield dividends in ways that we probably can not even think of today, just like Columbus probably had no idea of the magnitude of the future consequences of his voyage.
If every bit of research or every human activity to date would be viewed with the eye towards immediate economic sense then we'd still be hunter gatherers living in Africa, all of us.
Discovery, curiosity and a drive to expand our envelopes both in a physical sense and in a mental sense are valuable too, even if they don't show up next week on some balance sheet of humanity, Inc.
Look, I might not agree with op, but there's a been a slight development in remote sensing equipment since the late 1400s. What robot equipment would you propose the Queen of Spain omission to explore the vast seas?
Not to mention the fact that if there'd been an interest in following modern procedures (that obviously didn't exist at the time), perhaps genocide by disease might have been avoided.
(Even if one must be cynical, let us be fully cynical, not conveniently partially cynical: Historically speaking there was little compunction about simply killing people. Distributing infected blankets is an awfully roundabout and even dangerous-to-the-distributors way of doing something there was a much simpler way to do. I'd say "imagine the way we think of bird flu today" but back then the putative blanket infectors would be even more terrified of smallpox than that.)
I don't see a way accidental-genocide-by-disease could have been avoided. It only takes one sneeze to set off a powderkeg tens of thousands of years in the making. It was unfortunately structurally inevitable. (Inconceivably, beyond words "unfortunate", but still, inevitable.) It's hard to call it deliberate when I would frankly question our ability today to prevent it; very similarly, witness the number of invasive species that have been put into ecosystems even when we have known better and tried to avoid it. It just takes one action at the right place and the right time, and boom, exponential biological explosion.
it will, in the longer term yield dividends in ways that we probably can not even think of today
Like what? Trade routes on earth have predictable results - if they found a place to trade or a route to somewhere already existing, that's only to be expected.
There's nothing to trade with in space; there's no way we're having a colony on Mars making plastic trinkets and rocketing them back to Earth for sale, or buying Coca Cola rocketed from Earth.
I grant that you can't think of "dividends which we can't think of today", but what categories are you even speculating about? What even might there be?
We live in a big universe that's greatly unexplored both at the macro- and the micro- level, both in the physical and the spiritual realms (since you allude to less material motives in your reply). Anything we do (even large-scale, government-sponsored meditation) has the potential to "yield dividents in ways we probably can not even think of today". That's why you need economic calculation (and a firm grounding) to quantify that potential and decide which of the infinite projects that individuals, governments, or humanity can undertake makes the more sense. Colombus voyage actually made perfect sense from that perspective as it was all about economic calculation.
You seem to be stuck on economy so I'll limit to that.
The Potential of successful colonization of another planet is a total unknown, just like the potential of colonizing another continent is a total unknown. At least we know the other planet exist, whereas America was a bit of a surprise for Columbus.
Letting economic calculations guide you in the day-to-day running of a business is fine. But we as humanity can afford a little bit of money set aside for things that have no immediate value. Art and culture are amongst our most valuable possessions, but their value seems to be appreciating with time relative to the time when they were created. Much of our scientific knowledge had no immediate value at the time of discovery.
Columbus voyage may have made 'perfect sense' from an economic perspective in hindsight because it worked, but there was no guarantee that it would and plenty of people were arguing this was a waste of resources at the time.
I'm just as proud or more so of what humanity has achieved when economic gain wasn't the immediate focus as I am of the things we've achieved when economic gain was at the forefront of our thoughts guiding us to make our decisions. There is room for both of those.
"That's why you need economic calculation (and a firm grounding) to quantify that potential and decide which of the infinite projects that individuals, governments, or humanity can undertake makes the more sense."
Well, my experience of large scale EU funding programmes was that all the efforts to predict the economic yield of research projects was, at best, complete nonsense.
After all, who thought that by funding a nuclear research organisation (CERN) we'd get something like the Web? Has anyone got an economic model that could have predicted that?
It is also worth noting that NASA doesn't only do space exploration. It also does important work on civil aviation technology, remote sensing, climate studies, etc.
We always frame our arguments to support our claim; here you represent $17 billion as small compared to a $3.7 trillion bucket. If you were arguing the other way, you might have said we spend 3 times as much on NASA as we do homelessness [1].
In fact I just copied/pasted the bit about the NASA's percentage of the overall US budget from the referenced Wikipedia page. It wasn't an attempt at editorialising.
Homelessness is certainly an important problem, but is it more important than (for example) tackling antibiotic resistance ($450 million budget in FY2014 [1])? For any deserving issue/problem it is possible to play this game all day, as illustrated by the Fallacy of relative privation [2].
> Its high time that humanity moved past the notion that sending meatbags into space is a good idea.
No machine can come back and tell you how it felt to be there. How the Apollo 8 crew reacted the first time they looked back and saw the distant Earth as a planet, no different than the Moon ahead of them. Or how was it to be completely cut off from all of mankind while behind the Moon. Or to take that now famous earthrise picture.
There are two things here. The first, is the quest for knowledge. About how things are and how things became. Robots can do that wonderfully well.
The other is the quest for our place in the vastness of space. One is the quest for knowledge, for information. The second is the quest for meaning. No machine will give us that.
All the gold on the earth is thought to have come from asteroids. All the gold that was present when the Earth was formed sank to the core a long time ago.[1]
The moon is thought contain Helium 3 which can be used for fusion reactors.[2]
Although asteroids and Earth accreted from the same starting materials, Earth's relatively stronger gravity pulled all heavy siderophilic (iron-loving) elements into its core during its molten youth more than four billion years ago.[9][10][11] This left the crust depleted of such valuable elements until a rain of asteroid impacts re-infused the depleted crust with metals like gold, cobalt, iron, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, osmium, palladium, platinum, rhenium, rhodium, ruthenium and tungsten (some flow from core to surface does occur, e.g. at the Bushveld Igneous Complex, a famously rich source of platinum-group metals). Today, these metals are mined from Earth's crust, and they are essential for economic and technological progress. Hence, the geologic history of Earth may very well set the stage for a future of asteroid mining.
But I think the exciting part is that you have raw materials outside of Earth's gravity well. It's really expensive to haul stuff up, so a source of water in high orbit is really valuable if you want to do space stuff.
[1]: http://myanimelist.net/anime/12431/Uchuu_Kyoudai