![]() In its call for recruits, NASA encouraged pilots, engineers and other scientists to apply. With the American spaceflight program grounded since 2011 when the space shuttle was retired, NASA's current active corps currently comprises 47 members, down from 149 in 2000 at the peak of the space shuttle era. They will then be assigned to the International Space Station, the Orion spacecraft for deep space exploration or one of two commercial crew spacecraft currently in development - SpaceX's Dragon crew capsule and Boeing's CST-100 Starliner. Those who make it through will be given technical duties at Johnson's Astronaut Office. Training for the chosen candidates includes a focus on spacewalking and teamwork, as well as some command of Russian language. The timeframe for submitting applications opened on December 14 and closed on Thursday, with the space agency taking to social media to get the word out. NASA expects to announce its new class in mid-2017. In the end, a mere eight to 14 lucky individuals will be asked to report for training. Over the course of the next year and a half, a selection board will whittle down the applications and invite only the most highly qualified candidates for interviews at the Johnson Space Centre in Houston, Texas. "It's not at all surprising to me that so many Americans from diverse backgrounds want to personally contribute to blazing the trail on our journey to Mars," NASA administrator Charlie Bolden, a former astronaut, said in a statement.īut only a chosen few will actually see their galactic career goals realised. ![]() The number of applications for a spot in NASA's 2017 class is almost triple the amount that came in during the last recruitment call for the 2012 class.Īnd it shatters the previous record of 8,000 in 1978. NASA has received a record 18,300 resumes from people keen on becoming astronauts. ![]() You'll probably be drunk before the first episode ends.Those kids who said they wanted to be an astronaut when they grew up seem to be acting on their dreams all at once. Take a drink every time there's an error in narration or visual. The only reason to watch this series is if you already know NASA history and want a drinking game. It more like someone wrote a script from flawed memory of long-past TV reports. It's so suspect I refuse to call it a documentary because it appears absolutely no documents were researched. The lack of editorial review causes EVERYTHING to be suspect in this series. Did they never watch the movie "Apollo 13?" It also claimed hydrogen leaking from a solid rocket booster caused the loss of Challenger. ![]() It was actually caused by a short in a LOX tank and this has been well documented for a VERY long time. How did this get past script review? Did the narrator make the mistake? Did the sound engineer also not know it was wrong? Did no one proof the finished edit? Other blatant errors include stating the explosion on Apollo 13 was caused by a short in fuel cell number three. An example of one of the worst errors is stating that Neil YOUNG was the first to walk on the Moon. Didn't anybody fact check anything? Was the editor allowed to select any pretty image rather than go to the trouble of using footage that matched the narration? It would take longer than it took watching the series to properly document all the errors. Every episode has many glaring errors in facts and visuals. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |