tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6152535984695656521.post2225913022651299839..comments2009-07-21T09:41:53.213-10:00brianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00387138537627037829noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6152535984695656521.post-54178726989444626062009-07-21T09:20:58.107-10:002009-07-21T09:20:58.107-10:00It is an intersting question on whether NASA should be able to use population statistics to justify hiring decisions for astronauts, especially if Federal Law prohibits age descrimination over age 40 without a rational basis related to the position? What do other people think?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6152535984695656521.post-44202113917232725642009-07-20T08:41:38.037-10:002009-07-20T08:41:38.037-10:00As Sian Proctor mentioned, I think the fact that NASA does not hire female astronaut candidates over 40 deserves some discussion and debate here, especially in light of the new astronaut class that was just hired and the 40th Anniversary of going to the moon. The question is while NASA should hire the best qualified all around person at the time of their hiring, should NASA take into consideration gender and physical population factors that may indicate future bone loss in females astronaut candidates as they get older? Is NASA allowed to consider these factors if they want to train and employ in space astrouants ten to fifteen years out from their hire date? Any comments?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6152535984695656521.post-11232010917057396572009-07-11T18:29:52.104-10:002009-07-11T18:29:52.104-10:00I have clarified my thoughts about women being selected in their 40's so I hope anyone who reads this blog will visit my web site. I believe NASA takes the most qualified applicants and that medical issues can affect women in their 40's and their chances of being selected.Sian Proctorhttp://sianproctor.com/?p=183noreply@blogger.com