Manning the moon rocket. Expect...the unexpected

[RichA]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/29/world/nasa-artemis-moon-secretive-crew-selection-process/index.html

Lemmie guess: Instead of pure suitability for the mission, they'll choose:
-black person
-woman
-crippled person
-transgender person

Just a guess.

[Chris L Peterson]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 16:35:55 -0800 (PST), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:

As any of those can be as "purely suitable" as anybody else (there are
millions of equally suitable people) any of those would be good
choices. Of course, not to a bigot like you.

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in
news:o6jethp7j74je90gb...@4ax.com:

I would say cripipled may or may not be a disqualifier, but that's
not the point. The point is, those will be the *only* criteria. No
technical or scientific criteria, or competence at any of the
required tasks for perform the mission, will be considered.

He is quite possibly correct, too.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration


"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Chris L Peterson]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2023 18:40:20 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in
>news:o6jethp7j74je90gb...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 16:35:55 -0800 (PST), RichA
>> <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/29/world/nasa-artemis-moon-secretive-
>>>crew-selection-process/index.html
>>>
>>>Lemmie guess: Instead of pure suitability for the mission,
>>>they'll choose: -black person
>>>-woman
>>>-crippled person
>>>-transgender person
>>>
>>>Just a guess.
>>
>> As any of those can be as "purely suitable" as anybody else
>> (there are millions of equally suitable people) any of those
>> would be good choices. Of course, not to a bigot like you.
>>
>I would say cripipled may or may not be a disqualifier, but that's
>not the point. The point is, those will be the *only* criteria. No
>technical or scientific criteria, or competence at any of the
>required tasks for perform the mission, will be considered.
>
>He is quite possibly correct, too.

You can be counted on to say exceptionally stupid things, but you've
outdone yourself this time!

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in

news:fb8gthd6hlhb3ohti...@4ax.com:

You prove that once again, being named Chris at birth is a
crippliing disability, destroying all semblance of human
intelligence.

[RichA]

There have already been articles about this process endangering lives in the commercial and consumer aviation industry. Placement based on race and gender instead of competence first.

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 9:53:08 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 16:35:55 -0800 (PST), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
> wrote:

> >Lemmie guess: Instead of pure suitability for the mission, they'll choose:
> >-black person
> >-woman
> >-crippled person
> >-transgender person

> As any of those can be as "purely suitable" as anybody else (there are
> millions of equally suitable people) any of those would be good
> choices. Of course, not to a bigot like you.

Well, these days, there are _some_ test pilots who are women.

There was a famous article in Ms. magazine about how NASA secretly
trained thirteen women in addition to the Mercury Seven. At the time,
none of those women had the same _formal_ qualifications as the male
astronauts who were known to the public, for the simple reason that
the Air Force did not allow women to be test pilots back then.

But that didn't mean that they weren't qualified - they certainly could
have done a good job on a Mercury mission. It was decided, however,
that given the attitudes of the time, a fatal accident involving a _woman_
would mean the end of the space program.

You are quite correct in stating that a woman, a person of color, and
someone who was transgendered, _could_ be a fully qualified astronaut.
Even some disabilities would not necessarily be an impediment; being
paraplegic, for example, would be *less* of a disability in zero gravity,
and it certainly wouldn't prevent someone from being, say, a mission
specialist studying crystals growing in microgravity or some such thing.

However, just because you're correct *as far as you go* in what you're
saying, that doesn't mean you've proved RichA wrong.

Being transgendered is indeed not at all relevant to any of the
qualifications needed by an astronaut. However, there aren't
all that many transgendered people. So the *pool* of qualified
candidates is not as large.

There are a lot of women, and even a lot of black people - they
may be a minority, but they are a large one. But they've both faced
past discrimination that still echoes into the present, and that means
that fewer people in both those groups have been able to develop the
qualifications an astronaut would need.

And so, RichA is perfectly right in stating that if NASA is bound and
determined to ensure wide minority representation in its astronaut
pool, it will interfere with selecting the most qualified candidate for
every slot.

What you wrote did not invalidate this concern, it didn't even address
it.

However, while selecting every astronaut in a fair process which is
based *only on merit* does have an argument in its favor (it's good
for morale in the astronaut corps) because there will be fully
qualified candidates in the minority groups it is desired to represent,
I do believe that it is indeed fully possible for NASA to meet its goals
for minority representation without compromising either mission
safety or mission effectiveness.

I'm just not under any illusions about how they will manage that.
It will not be achieved as an automatic result of a color-blind (and
gender-blind, et cetera) selection process based on merit alone.
They are going to have to intentionally nudge things along,
selectively compromising the level of candidate qualification where
they can get away with it.

This isn't because minority members are _inherently_ inferior, but because
we still don't live in a perfect world.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 8:54:56 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:

> However, while selecting every astronaut in a fair process which is
> based *only on merit* does have an argument in its favor (it's good
> for morale in the astronaut corps) because there will be fully
> qualified candidates in the minority groups it is desired to represent,
> I do believe that it is indeed fully possible for NASA to meet its goals
> for minority representation without compromising either mission
> safety or mission effectiveness.
>
> I'm just not under any illusions about how they will manage that.
> It will not be achieved as an automatic result of a color-blind (and
> gender-blind, et cetera) selection process based on merit alone.
> They are going to have to intentionally nudge things along,
> selectively compromising the level of candidate qualification where
> they can get away with it.

On further reflection, I think that some additional clarification is in
order.

Because NASA will only have a very small number of slots to fill, and
because of how important and glamorous the astronaut program is,
while I think they will indeed have to perhaps waive some requirements
for _formal_ qualifications and things like that, I do _not_ think they will
be in the position of having to accept people who just barely squeak
through with the minimum necessary competence to achieve minority
representation.

Instead, having their pick of the best and brightest in every minority
group, NASA will probably be able to pick the minority representatives
such that it will be hard to distinguish them, in terms of their
competence, from the others.

NASA will have to make an effort, yes, but it won't be the kind of
effort that it's so easy to stereotype it as.

John Savard

[RichA]

On Monday, 30 January 2023 at 22:54:56 UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 9:53:08 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 16:35:55 -0800 (PST), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >Lemmie guess: Instead of pure suitability for the mission, they'll choose:
> > >-black person
> > >-woman
> > >-crippled person
> > >-transgender person
> > As any of those can be as "purely suitable" as anybody else (there are
> > millions of equally suitable people) any of those would be good
> > choices. Of course, not to a bigot like you.
> Well, these days, there are _some_ test pilots who are women.

https://www.nhregister.com/news/article/limited-training-options-keep-women-ct-fire-17744784.php

Onward and downward...Lets just hope when the lawsuits start pouring in from people whose relatives burned up in fires because the fireperson couldn't handle a rescue the cities have plenty of insurance.

[Chris L Peterson]

I don't claim to have proven him wrong. Just pointed out his bigotry,
yet again.

For every astronaut selected on "merit" there are a thousand other
people out there equally qualified. The idea of placing emphasis on
classes of people who have been excluded in no way limits the
selection of the most qualified people. Never has, and never will.

[RichA]

Oops! I mean, "personing" the moon rocket...

[W]

-
peterson, you are outnumbered 4-to-1 on this.

[W]

On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 7:35:57 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
> https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/29/world/nasa-artemis-moon-secretive-crew-selection-process/index.html
>
> Lemmie guess: Instead of pure suitability for the mission, they'll choose:

-

A logical, sensible person would hope that only the MOST qualified would be selected for this. There are only four crew members and much can go wrong during the mission.

[W]

On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 7:35:57 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:

> https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/29/world/nasa-artemis-moon-secretive-crew-selection-process/index.html
>
> Lemmie guess: Instead of pure suitability for the mission, they'll choose:

-

NASA was among the first to send an anime archetype into space.

[Chris L Peterson]

On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 06:17:57 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

So?

[W]

Not much of answer. Try again, 5th grader.

[Chris L Peterson]

On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 08:00:23 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>

The irony burns.

[W]

You do not even know what irony means.

You didn't even read and understand the article.

[W]

On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 7:35:57 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
> https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/29/world/nasa-artemis-moon-secretive-crew-selection-process/index.html
>

-

There is a paragraph in the article that, taken at face value, advocates active and intentional discrimination.

It is not exactly clear if that statement represents actual NASA policy, or is just the naive, idealistic meanderings of lefty journalism.

[Chris L Peterson]

On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 12:23:23 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

There is not necessarily anything wrong with intentional
discrimination. Indeed, in an unfair society, it is an ethical
requirement.

[W]

ROTFLMAO!

You really need to explain yourself on that one!

The astronauts seem to have come from privileged backgrounds and schools.

> Indeed, in an unfair society, it is an ethical
> requirement.

Explain how ANY of the astronauts have been treated "unfairly."

But obviously if one wants an unfair society, as you seem to want, intentional discrimination will certainly lead to that result. There certainly won't be anything ethical about it.

[Chris L Peterson]

On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 16:47:04 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>

Who said astronauts have been treated unfairly?

In a society that has practiced discrimination and marginalized
specific populations, it is ethical to prioritize selection from those
populations as a remedy. That is a form of discrimination that isn't
bad.

[W]

On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 12:22:13 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 16:47:04 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 4:34:23 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 12:23:23 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 7:35:57 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
> >> >> https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/29/world/nasa-artemis-moon-secretive-crew-selection-process/index.html
> >> >>
> >> >-
> >> >
> >> >There is a paragraph in the article that, taken at face value, advocates active and intentional discrimination.
> >> >
> >> >It is not exactly clear if that statement represents actual NASA policy, or is just the naive, idealistic meanderings of lefty journalism.
> >> >
> >> There is not necessarily anything wrong with intentional
> >> discrimination.
> >
> >ROTFLMAO!
> >
> >You really need to explain yourself on that one!
> >
> >The astronauts seem to have come from privileged backgrounds and schools.
> >
> >> Indeed, in an unfair society, it is an ethical
> >> requirement.
> >
> >Explain how ANY of the astronauts have been treated "unfairly."
> >
> >But obviously if one wants an unfair society, as you seem to want, intentional discrimination will certainly lead to that result. There certainly won't be anything ethical about it.
> Who said astronauts have been treated unfairly?

You did.

[W]

Give examples of how the current white astronauts have discriminated against the black astronauts and how the black astronauts have ever been discriminated against and by whom.

Quoted from the article:
"If Wiseman, a White man, is selected, that means the other spots will almost certainly need to go to at least one woman and at least one person of color. "

I suggest that NASA hold a lottery to determine who goes on the mission, if indeed it has no remaining criteria by which to choose logically. THAT would be fair.

Discrimination, that you seem to wholeheartedly support, is never fair in this context.

[Chris L Peterson]

On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 04:23:24 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>

I didn't say the current astronauts have discriminated against black
astronauts.

I see you dementia is going into full gear.

[W]

You didn't give examples of how the current black astronauts have been discriminated against, BY SOCIETY. Because you have none to give.

So, why should the white astronauts be discriminated against? They are blameless.

[Chris L Peterson]

On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 07:31:57 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>

I didn't say that current black astronauts had been discriminated
against.

[W]

Regardless of what you CLAIM to have "not said," and regarding the current roster of NASA astronauts:

Do you BELIEVE that any of the white astronauts have discriminated against any black astronauts?

Do you BELIEVE that any of the white astronauts have discriminated against any black people?

Do you BELIEVE that any of the black astronauts have been discriminated against by any white people?

I know that your reading comprehension is poor but do try to answer these simple questions, so that you can (potentially) become educated.

[Gerald Kelleher]

There is something wrong with your keyboard as capitalising the word 'believe' does nothing, whereas adding complexions such as black complexion astronauts, white complexion astronauts or whatever softens any differences unless you believe in natural selection where black complexion humans are on a sliding scale back to gorillas and baboons than white complexion people.

[Chris L Peterson]

On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 08:47:24 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>

I believe you miss the point. Of course, all of the black astronauts
suffered significant discrimination over their entire lives, as all
black Americans do.

[Gerald Kelleher]

The one black complexion American worth listening to in this matter, past or present, was Frederick Douglass-

" Man is distinguished from all other animals by the possession of certain definite faculties and powers, as well as by physical organization and proportions. He is the only two-handed animal on the earth—the only one that laughs and nearly the only one that weeps. Men instinctively
distinguish between men and brutes. Common sense itself is scarcely needed to detect the absence of manhood in a monkey or to recognize its presence in a negro. His speech, his reason, his power to acquire and to retain knowledge, his heaven-erected face, his habitudes, his hopes, his fears, his aspirations, his prophecies, plant between him and the brute creation, a distinction as eternal as it is palpable. Away, therefore, with all the scientific moonshine that would connect men with monkeys; that would have the world believe that humanity, instead of resting on its own characteristic pedestal
— gloriously independent — is a sort of sliding scale, making one extreme brother to the orangutang, and the other to angels, and all the rest intermediates!" Frederick Douglass, 1854

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/rbc/rbaapc/07900/07900.pdf

At the same time, he wrote that in 1854, academics were arranging the Human Race into superior/inferior 'races' within an evolutionary narrative-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism#/media/File:Races_and_skulls.png

Five years after that, natural selection shows up in 1859-

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." -- Charles Darwin (1871) The Descent of Man

Then the Nazis came along, reheated natural selection in its original format, and 6 million people died by a bullet, the gas chambers and other horrible means-

" Under proper guidance, in the course of the final solution the Jews are to be allocated for appropriate labour in the East. Able-bodied Jews, separated according to sex, will be taken in large work columns to these areas for work on roads, in the course of which action doubtless a large portion will be eliminated by natural causes. The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly because it is the product of natural selection and would, if released, act as the seed of a new Jewish revival" Wannsee Conference, 1942

So we come full circle to Frederick Douglass and his prescient view of humanity and the dangers that humanity was about to face.

Having destroyed solar system research, the Earth science of biology suffered next and then the Earth science of climate.

[W]

You evading the questions are usual. What specific discrimination did any of them suffer that kept them from getting educations and becoming NASA astronauts?

[Gerald Kelleher]

Dante, in poetic form, wrote about this condition where people who lack the ability to feel inspiration/spirit through their own choice are forced to bite each other in order to feel something.

[Chris L Peterson]

On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 13:27:36 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>

You are evading the issue. How many black people didn't have the
opportunity to become astronauts because of discrimination?

[W]

None.

Now answer the three questions that you were supposed to answer, above.

You need to stop being evasive. You need to provide evidence of your racist assertions or you need to shut up.

[Chris L Peterson]

On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 08:03:03 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>

Your hood is showing.

[W]

Your neighborhood discriminates, heavily.
You owe me an apology, you owe RichA an apology.

[Chris L Peterson]

On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 12:02:36 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>

You are both human filth.

[W]

I am against discrimination. RichA seems to be against discrimination.

You are FOR discrimination:

"There is not necessarily anything wrong with intentional discrimination."

YOU wrote that! Talk about 'human filth!'

You now owe even more apologies.

And do tell us (truthfully) about the demographics of your area.
That should be enlightening.

[Gerald Kelleher]

It is a privilege like no other to be an individual human being within the Human Race. The objection of Douglass remains as valid today as it was when it was written in 1854 and moreso with hindsight, considering what happened afterwards.

" Man is distinguished from all other animals by the possession of certain definite faculties and powers, as well as by physical organization and proportions. He is the only two-handed animal on the earth—the only one that laughs and nearly the only one that weeps. Men instinctively
distinguish between men and brutes. Common sense itself is scarcely needed to detect the absence of manhood in a monkey or to recognize its presence in a negro. His speech, his reason, his power to acquire and to retain knowledge, his heaven-erected face, his habitudes, his hopes, his fears, his aspirations, his prophecies, plant between him and the brute creation, a distinction as eternal as it is palpable. Away, therefore, with all the scientific moonshine that would connect men with monkeys; that would have the world believe that humanity, instead of resting on its own characteristic pedestal
— gloriously independent — is a sort of sliding scale, making one extreme brother to the orangutang, and the other to angels, and all the rest intermediates!" Frederick Douglass, 1854

I don't mind those who behave like brutes and denigrate other humans, however, I have yet to see those who share something in common with the Universe at a local solar system level and on to larger structures and motions on one side, or the links between a moving Earth in a Sun-centred system with Earth sciences on the other.

[Quadibloc]

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 6:25:43 PM UTC-7, W wrote:

> You are FOR discrimination:
> "There is not necessarily anything wrong with intentional discrimination."
> YOU wrote that! Talk about 'human filth!'

Why is it worthy of criticism that someone supports affirmative
action measures as part of cleaning up the consequences of a
long period of past discrimination?

After all, it *is* a fact that the average incomes, the average
wealth, and the average educational levels, of black people
in the United States are lower than those of white people.

Since science has shown that biologically black people are
fully equal to white people, the _only_ possible cause of this
is discrimination, because black people aren't on average
more recent arrivals to the United States than white people.

Erasing the effects of discrimination doesn't just mean
helping those black people who are at the bottom. All the
black people, from the bottom up to the top, have to be
moved up to create a condition where the black population
and the white population are, percentile by percentile,
economically indistinguishable from each other.

This is needed not just as some abstract idealized goal, but
for the practical reason of providing black employers and
black role models.

So there's wrong evil discrimination, that makes a minority
population poor - and there is affirmative action, which uses
reverse discrimination as the quickest and most effective
tool in eradicating the consequences of past evil discrimination.

Your argument would only make sense if the discrimination
within affirmative action was a means that was evil in itself
that it would be impermissible to use to achieve the end of
correcting the consequences of past racism. But why on
Earth would anyone even suspect that, if they weren't really
wicked people whose real goal was keeping black people
disadvantaged for as long as possible?

Oh, of course, that last paragraph is so disingenuous as
to perhaps leave you sputtering. Principled opposition to
discrimination for any reason is of course possible.

However, the continued parlous situation of black people
in general in the United States is such that not only black
people, but those white people who care about their fate
have largely lost any patience with further calls for
patience. An end to inequality is already 247 years
overdue.

John Savard

[W]

On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 9:09:56 AM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 6:25:43 PM UTC-7, W wrote:
>
> > You are FOR discrimination:
> > "There is not necessarily anything wrong with intentional discrimination."
> > YOU wrote that! Talk about 'human filth!'
> Why is it worthy of criticism that someone supports affirmative
> action measures as part of cleaning up the consequences of a
> long period of past discrimination?

The idea is to have a LEVEL playing field.
A black person who is an astronaut has probably NOT experienced anything resembling the "past discrimination" to which you so vaguely allude.

> After all, it *is* a fact that the average incomes, the average
> wealth, and the average educational levels, of black people
> in the United States are lower than those of white people.

The same is "true" in CANADA, strangely enough.

I know that you lack any capacity for logic but read this misguided article:
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/message-from-sky-telescope/

I grew up in a light-polluted area, had meager resources, and yet still developed an intense interest in amateur astronomy from a young age. So there is definitely NO EXCUSE why a black kid with the same opportunities could not do as I did. He or she just chose to do something else with his or her time.

Now, you and peterson want to discriminate against people who look like me.

Evil.