> That's the part I also couldn't ever get over. He's shown to have a serious heart condition, and then cheats his way onto a space mission? But he survived. H

> That's the part I also couldn't ever get over. He's shown to have a serious heart condition, and then cheats his way onto a space mission? But he survived. He survived far longer than calculated. Isn't this direct evidence that his genetically determined heart condition was successfully counteracted by a non-genetically identified trait? And his perfection and determination when designing the mission plan was flawless. Presumably far more flawless than the "valids" he was working with, despite having an inferior genome, or the director would never have commented on it. His attitude dramatically improved the odds of mission success. You seem to be arguing that if a metric says "don't do it", that this metric should be obeyed, even in light of evidence that it is wrong. Had the metric about his heart condition been correct, he never would have made it onto the flight.