I didn’t say that increasing the pool was a bad idea. In fact, I said it’s a benefit, albeit a marginal one because it’s a relatively small % of people we’re talking about here. The problem is that it comes at a cost. Furthermore, while we’re on the subject of pool increase, it’s also vastly lowering the selection pool if they favor people from this small group.
There may be aspects of the selection process that are arbitrary, but not having physical disabilities isn’t one of them. As the article discusses, this would involve changing a number of aspects about the program to accommodate this one specific group. It’s not just a matter of “reconsidering and expanding” the restrictions, it’s clearly a major undertaking.
Space exploration seems difficult and delayed enough without this virtue signaling. Supporting disabilities would add a number of new challenges on top of the existing ones, and with marginal practical benefit (increasing the pool of potential astronauts by the small minority that have disabilities).
Being an astronaut is a ridiculously selective process, it’s not like disabled people are missing out on something here that’s accessible to any non-disabled person. The opportunity for someone to get into space, whether disabled or not, is almost nil regardless.
Whether or not you think that this is OK, let's at least agree that fake Facebook postings are a big deal. There's a reason why Russia worked hard to sway people's minds for the 2016 election.
There may be aspects of the selection process that are arbitrary, but not having physical disabilities isn’t one of them. As the article discusses, this would involve changing a number of aspects about the program to accommodate this one specific group. It’s not just a matter of “reconsidering and expanding” the restrictions, it’s clearly a major undertaking.