Requirements / process to become a shuttle astronaut?

Requirements / process to become a shuttle astronaut?

Hi guys,

I'm a long time lurker, first time poster, and I finally have a
question that warrants my registering for DejaNews .. *ahem* I mean
"Google Groups."

What are generally the minimum requirements to become an astronaut on
the shuttle? In my case, I'd probably be looking at mission
specialist, since I'm going to school for engineering. What level of
education is necessary – masters, doctorate? Does military experience
help (I've been contemplating the Navy Nuclear OCP for post-grad)?
Are there any particular fields of study career paths that are more
favorable than others? After one has attained the necessary
qualifications, how does he apply, and is it better to wait until
after becoming highly qualified, or to begin application as soon as is
feasibly possible? What percentage of applicants are actually
accepted? A lot questions, I know, but I never managed to let go of
the typical ten-year-old dream of becoming an astronaut, and as it's
nearly time for me to graduate from college, I need to start making
some decisions about where to go in life. Admittedly, I think that
any plans I make for this will probably go just about as well as my
plans to get into MIT or Rose-Hulman did (read: they don't get past
the application), but it's something that I'd like to have a little
more information on nonetheless. Any insights into this process that
you are able to provide are appreciated.

Thanks!

Daniel Huizenga

On 11 Nov 2003 23:06:03 -0800, (Dan Huizenga) wrote:

What are generally the minimum requirements to become an astronaut on
the shuttle?

From http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/.../asseltrn.html

For mission specialists and pilot astronaut candidates, the education and
experience requirements are at least a bachelor's degree from an accredited
institution in engineering, biological science, physical science, or
mathematics ... three years of related, progressively responsible professional
experience must follow the degree. An advanced degree is desirable and may be
substituted for all or part of the experience requirement (i.e., master's
degree = 1 year of work experience, doctoral degree = 3 years of experience).

Mission specialists have similar requirements to pilot astronauts, except that
the qualifying physical is a NASA Class II space physical, which is similar to
a military of civilian Class II flight physical and includes the following
specific standards: for vision-distance visual acuity - 20/200 or better
uncorrected, correctable to 20/20, each eye. For Blood pressure-Same as for
Pilots [140/90 measured in a sitting position]. Height requirements for mission
specialists are between 58.5 and 76 inches.


In my case, I'd probably be looking at mission
specialist, since I'm going to school for engineering.

Engineers make up about 75% of all applicants. If you have a degree in
something else, that'd help.

What level of
education is necessary – masters, doctorate?

Officially, only a bachelor's is needed, but in practice, they take a majority
of PhDs.

Does military experience
help (I've been contemplating the Navy Nuclear OCP for post-grad)?

Sure won't hurt....

Are there any particular fields of study career paths that are more
favorable than others?

Yes. The trick is to find out specifically what NASA is looking for and then
retroactively take that career path. Sometimes they're looking for MDs, for
example, and other times they're not. If you're an MD in the year that they're
looking for them, your chances are much better than if you're an MD in the year
that they're not looking.

After one has attained the necessary
qualifications, how does he apply,

By going to the website at http://nasajobs.nasa.gov/astronauts/application.htm

and is it better to wait until
after becoming highly qualified, or to begin application as soon as is
feasibly possible?

If you don't mind getting rejected over and over, it doesn't hurt to keep
applying. It also shows persistence. You never know, you might have that one
skill they're looking for even before you get to be "highly qualified".

What percentage of applicants are actually
accepted?

In recent years, you'll get something like 2500 qualified applicants (they meet
all the minimum criteria). From those, they'll check backgrounds on the highly
qualified and then choose around 120 to bring down for medical tests and
interviews. From that group, roughly 12-25 will be chosen.


A lot questions, I know, but I never managed to let go of
the typical ten-year-old dream of becoming an astronaut, and as it's
nearly time for me to graduate from college, I need to start making
some decisions about where to go in life. Admittedly, I think that
any plans I make for this will probably go just about as well as my
plans to get into MIT or Rose-Hulman did (read: they don't get past
the application), but it's something that I'd like to have a little
more information on nonetheless. Any insights into this process that
you are able to provide are appreciated.

There's a lot of good info at the following web sites:
http://nasajobs.nasa.gov/astronauts/
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/more.html

You can also join a mailing list for "AsHos", or "astronaut hopefuls" at
http://www.ashos.org/index2.html, they have a lot of good stuff in the archives
submitted by people who went through the interview processes.

--
Michael R. Grabois # http://chili.cjb.net # http://wizardimps.blogspot.com
"People say losing builds character. That's the stupidest thing I ever
heard. All losing does is suck. " -- Charles Barkley, 9/29/96

In article , Dan Huizenga wrote:

What are generally the minimum requirements to become an astronaut on
the shuttle?

I don't want to sound discouraging, because I'm not. I'm just going to
honestly point out some of what it's like, based on stories of both
successful and failed candidates for the ASCAN program (which is the golden
ticket into the astronaut program -- you can still wash out of the ASCAN
program but if you don't, you'll be an astronaut -- albeit one who hasn't
yet flown into space).

Do keep in mind there's usually a large lead time between the time you are
selected for an ASCAN class and the time you actually fly... 8-10 years is
not uncommon and sometimes it even stretches out to 15 years. But the sheer
majority do get their first flight within about 8 years... really does
require some unexpected major event to result in a 15 year wait.

Most average astronaut will get only one or two space flights then that's
it for their career, and will be otherwise "desk job-bound". Only the more
exceptional astronauts with the right set of people skills and expertise
will get to fly 3 or more flights. Dr. Chang-Diaz and Dr. Musgrave are just
some prime examples of some of the most highly respected astronauts in
their fraternity and rewarded with lots of flights.

Then there is Lt. Col. Cady Coleman -- very nice article at:

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/outreach...ronaut101.html

To the uninformed, she may look like a 'pretty face', but to these whom
knows more about her background, she is anything *BUT* a 'pretty face'!

Incredibly goal-oriented, unafraid to tackle tough stuff, has advanced
degrees and field experience, a military background, contributing to
original research, and then onward to NASA working in things that's of
great interest -- microgravity experiments in particular.

I was rather disappointed to see the crew of STS-73 on the show 'Home
Improvement' in 1996 where the producers reduced Lt. Col. (and Dr.)
Coleman's dialogue to a really pithy comment. So much smarter than that!
Don't know why she hasn't flown since STS-93 in 1999... maybe it's just the
normal wait / rotation or there's some internal politics behind it.

Also, the comments below refers to the traditional path; it *is* possible
to make it in through a non-traditional path, but that's more luck and
timing and being in the right place (at the right time). Barbara Morgan
knows something about non-traditional paths to becoming a Mission
Specialist.

With that said, you've got to think of it differently. 'minimum' is not a
real good way of looking at it. Reason? You would be competiting against
the *best* people imaginable. 'minimum' would only wash you out so fast
you'd get whiplash while wondering what happened. You've got to be right up
there and able to compete with the very best, and somehow have that extra
special quality to carry you over the top.

NASA easily has more applicants than open positions so it can afford to be
choosy, and they will invariably go for the very best. After all, if you
can handle the rigors of academicia and professional work, as well as a
grueling evaluation process and other things, then you can probably be well
suited for the job -- NASA expects you to stay there for at least 10 years
in order to recoup its extensive (and pretty expensive) investment in
training. (It's mentioned on one of the initial application forms, to make
sure the prospective candidate understands exactly what kind of commitment
is being asked of them, before they submit the application.)

In my case, I'd probably be looking at mission specialist, since I'm
going to school for engineering.

What level of education is necessary? masters, doctorate?

Both, and the more, the better A common winning combination: an advanced
degree in one field and work (hands-on) experience in another field. A
number of candidates may have two advanced degrees. I would also recommend
at least a doctorate in an 'hard science' field. This is truly a tough
crowd to compete against... it can be done, but you've got to meet and
exceed them, work with them, and also manage not to be intimidated by
anything or anybody at any time. Large order, but can be done!

Does military experience help (I've been contemplating the Navy Nuclear
OCP for post-grad)?

They require it for the pilot/commander position. I don't think they care
as much about military experience for anything else. Doesn't hurt if you
have it; doesn't seem to hurt if you don't. (I think the traditional
breakdown has been roughly about 1/3 of MS candidates having a military
background and 2/3 with only a civilian background.)

Are there any particular fields of study career paths that are more
favorable than others?

Definitely. In particular, you get a pretty good ranking and weighting if
you got advanced degrees in what is informally known as 'the hard sciences'
-- physics (or a branch thereof -- astrophysics, etc) and others (medical
sciences, earth sciences?). Particularly stuff that are not well known or
understood and which NASA often has missions for, and also has opportunity
for developing experiments and post-flight analysis. I don't recall what
they thought of engineering; it's certainly not bad, but not ranked as
highly as these prime fields of expertise. Yet, the right area of
engineering can be pretty highly desirable, I am told, especially as a way
to get the foot in the door.

There *ARE* various fields that are definitely not desired or weighted very
low -- technology, engineering technology, etc. Choose wisely! The various
links mentioned at the end will go in more details about what is good and
what's bad as an advisory for choosing wisely.

It's not required for mission / payload specialist candidates, but they
will strongly prefer or better weight you if you have flying experience --
even a private pilot's license. It's well known that some of the astronauts
today went out and got a PPL before applying in order to boost their
chances. (It worked.)

After one has attained the necessary qualifications, how does he apply,

Easy as downloading the forms from a NASA web site. (Given at the end)

They do have an open application period, which was usually once every 2-4
years in the past... they may reduce the frequency if they think they have
too many unflown crew aboard with reduced flight schedules. I think they
have a slight issue with that right now, don't they? Yet, NASA was making
noises about gearing up for a big push... don't know if that's changed in
light of STS-107, especially since there may be fewer flights given
post-107 new launch constraints (beta angle cut-off, daytime, etc).

They use these forms to weed out anybody who has known tendencies or
medical issues that would promptly disqualify them, or on basis of a
lacking educational background. This form is probably pretty effective at
significantly narrowing down whom they should look at closer. I don't
recall the rest of the process except that there's quite a few more steps
before getting that invitation for interviews and full-scale medical
evaluations.

I have this form from when they were taking applications in late '96 or
'97, just out of sheer curiosity. It's pretty interesting reading
because it tells me a lot about what NASA is really concerned about.
Basically, anything you check off on the first page will wash you out on
the spot.

Darn, can't find it right now. But one of the more interesting questions
was: "Do you like to ride roller coasters?" If you check 'no', I believe
that means a disqualification. So if you don't like coasters, I'd suggest a
visit out to Cedar Point, along with a pile of airsickness bags, and just
ride the coasters for a couple days until you get used to them and even
enjoy them!

(They've got good reasons for asking -- you could suffocate if you threw up
in a spacesuit, and it'd be a real bad day for everybody if that
happened... especially when you're 200 miles above Earth. Some of the
training will involve some spectacularly disorienting motions, as well as
some of the interesting sensations and outside views during landing.)

Then there was a long list of medical ailments that would disqualify you on
basis of not wanting something nasty to develop when in space and causing
real problems - they're ultra conservative on that point. They also ask for
a summary of your educational background. And possibly some other
miscellaneous stuff I've forgotten by now.

I also need to mention that any surgery for vision problems which involves
altering any part of the eye will disqualify you instantly; no exceptions.

That's stuff like LASIK and similar types of invasive surgery. Their big
fear is that these kinds of surgery may result in an amount of vision
distortion (colors, especially perception, distance, etc) -- usually
negligible to the average person, but becomes critical for pilots, and may
be pretty darned important for other work in space or training.

They do accept vision correction through glasses (for sure -- STS-1
commander, John Young, wore glasses) and maybe contact lenses (less sure
about this one).

I don't have a prayer due to a congenital medical condition or two, but
others do and I encourage them to give it a serious try if they've got the
'right stuff' (requirements-wise).

and is it better to wait until after becoming highly qualified, or to
begin application as soon as is feasibly possible?

Well, I'd guess you'd want to wait until becoming highly qualified,
otherwise you'd probably get washed out long before the interview stage.

I figure it'd create a less than favorable impression if you were clearly
not sufficiently qualified (or competitively qualified) and applied -- NASA
might get the feeling you were only wasting their time. Hence, I would
recommend going for it when you've got a solid chance to make that good
first impression, even if you don't have that perfect background yet.

Maybe others will have differing opinions.

What percentage of applicants are actually accepted?

I don't recall, but of the folks that *do* make it to the interview and
exams stage, the percentage will depend on how many NASA needs for a
particular class... if they only need a few people, the percentage of folks
who are accepted is pretty low. At best, for a big class, it may be about
50%?

But that's only after you've made it to the interview and exams stage; the
earlier processes weeds out so many more. So if you wanted percentage of
acceptance from initial application to admission into the ASCAN program...
then, well, I'd probably say it's got to be relatively low. Someone here
probably has or know the numbers.

A typical class is often every 2 years during an hiring boom (and longer
when they aren't hiring) and may have between 10-25 successful candidates
selected. I seem to recall I read somewhere that NASA does at least 2000
medical evaluations per year -- don't know how many of that are from
prospective ASCAN hopefuls/candidates but if you figure an average of about
"9 persons per year" and compare it to 2000 evals/yr... the ultimate figure
would be half of one percent. At best, probably not greater than five
percent or so, and possibly less?

Put in perspective... you would have to be better than 19 other people if
the rate is 5%. Hence, it is not at all sufficient to be merely qualified
or "reasonably qualified"... you *have* to be the best person possible for
the job, and that requires impeccable credentials and background.

The scores amongst the candidates has such so small differences because
they, as a group, are rather well matched and even, so even 'small' things
can magnify themselves to a large advantage. Conversely, someone else
scoring .1 point higher on a key test than you could end up dooming your
chances if it puts you below a cut-off point or even if it simply ranks
them higher than you.

You also want to keep something in mind... it is somewhat common to make it
into the program on your 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th try. Folks who gets
discouraged and quits after the first time they've gone through the process
and been rejected are unlikely to be the kind of persistent and goal
oriented person NASA wants. Also, one of the things NASA does psychological
testing on all potential candidates is how they cope with adversity and
failure situations, including a few of impossible-to-recover-from
situations. (Classic test: lots of caution lights coming on at a pace
faster than in which you can deal with them.)

Sometimes it does help if you get another job at NASA (or USA) even if you
fail in your quest, because it also provides NASA with a chance to
scrutinize you better and monitor your progress and ability to work with
others as well as quality of work. There has been a number of astronauts
who, after being rejected, smartly chose jobs at NASA and worked there for
some years then tried again and made it in... working at NASA/USA
definitely does give additional weight.

There's also a benefit to do the process more than once... it gives NASA
its first look at you, and it gives you familiarization with *both* the
people _and_ the process, so it's a lot less frightening and mysterious the
subsequent times you try it. Michael Collins, the command module pilot on
Apollo 11, talked about this phenomenon in his book _Carrying the Fire_.
It's a good read, even if he was from a NASA of long ago; some things
hasn't changed in nearly 45 years. He also talks a little about what it's
like to have an astronaut's life...especially for a junior and unflown one.
Amusing tales but sounds tough and tiring!

Also, it is possible to be washed out even if you've got the right stuff,
because maybe you were just slightly lacking in one area -- well, the time
between astronaut class application openings usually gives you an
opportunity to polish up whatever was lacking, and then try again. I don't
think they have openings for fewer than every two years... and it may be
longer in-between depending on their staffing needs.

A lot questions, I know, but I never managed to let go of the typical
ten-year-old dream of becoming an astronaut.

Questions are good! It shows that the person is a thinker, and that they
are interested -- both are very posiive attributes. The more, the merrier!

I would say to *never* ever apologize for wanting to ask questions -- that
could be seen as a mark of insecurity. So be confident and proud... and
fire away!

From what I've read about the process -- there are good stuff written by
these who has actually done it, full of tips and interesting information.

For instance, if you are a male, you may want to shave your chest and back
(if necessary) completely before undergoing the medical exams (if you make
it that far) because they will attach and rip off electrodes so many times
over the several days that it will hurt unless you were smart enough to
prepare for it. It's something like 12 electrodes per test, X number of
tests, Y number of days... you do the math - it quickly becomes a painful
experience.

They may shave it when you show up if they deem necessary but I don't know
how thorough or quality of the job is. It's probably better to prepare in
advance so that you can get started with tests right away, anyway.

Or that they will put you in a little ball (former rescue ball that was
around in early days of the program but is currently not used) for an
undisclosed amount of time. You basically just sit there in what is
designed to test for claustrophobic tendencies, as well as your ability to
deal with some other things. Then when you finally come out, they
immediately ask you to answer a bunch of questions -- what were your
thoughts? How long do you think you've been in there?

Or that one of the tests will involve putting your head flat on a vertical
plate, and they basically require you keep your eye(s) open throughout the
*whole* time, and they shine an *EXTREMELY* _BRIGHT_ light - *POWERFUL*,
probably 300,000+ lumens? It's so bright that your eyes will have a really
powerful urge to close, and will usually tear up pretty quickly. Scary
stuff if you didn't know about this test or typical reactions.

Or a treadmill test where they ask you to run for as long as you can, and
then stop immediately when you feel you've peaked and are about to start
feeling poorly. They don't ask you to run a specific speed for at least one
of these tests, I think. So the nurse takes notes on a number of observed
parameters, saying nothing during all this time.

At this point in the test, it becomes a mind game... do they want you to
run as fast as you can to see your peak rate? Or do they want to see if you
will choose a slower rate for greater endurance? Or do they want to see if
you will run to peak then stop and honestly admit it, or will you push
yourself further beyond? If you push yourself beyond, will it disqualify
you? They could be concerned about you pushing yourself beyond what's safe
while in space and end up creating an emergency situation (VERY BAD). Or
maybe they want to see how tough/durable you are? They give you *no* hints
whatsoever about what the correct response is during the tests! So you have
to figure out a good approach, and even after the tests, they don't really
give you any feedback so you don't know if it was the right answer or not.

Finally, I wanted to note that you should be *pretty* good in dealing with
people. Not the occasional person or two, but with large groups of people.
That's something they will definitely have their psychologists evaluate.

Why? At NASA, when training or preparing for something, you'll be
constantly surrounded by a group of people that you've got to work with. As
well as with the general public when you do PR duties ("week in the
barrel") and must convey a pretty darned good impression of NASA at all
times, even when grumpy or tired. Besides, there's the obvious importance
of meshing well as a crew for all phases of a mission -- training,
planning, execution, evaluation, etc.

Some of the tests that NASA gives to prospective ASCANs are downright
diabolical -- some of the tests will actually force everybody to compete
against each other in a way that will bring out their true tendencies.
Psychologists do note if a particular group of candidates has been rather
cutthroat in a desire to win, or if they willingly pool notes during their
free time or mealtimes over successful strategies to help everybody have a
shot at success.

You're also exposed to a lot of new people -- memorizing names the first
time you hear it and where they're from, what they do, what they like...
then sizing up your 'competition' as well as what's expected of you for any
given task/test... you do all that stuff on the fly so you've got to be
very good with it.

In fact, this will *not* be limited to merely the people you will compete
with or the trainers you will meet. It will become crucial to know the
current (and management) astronauts' backgrounds well because if you get
far enough in the process, there will be a social "wine-and-cheese" type of
event where you get to "casually" chat with them. In reality, it is
anything but casual! A studied atmosphere of cat-and-mouse games, I'm told.

They are, in fact, evaluating your intelligence and other areas... and if
you don't come prepared knowing what they've done, what projects they
worked on and are working on, and not just that, but useful details about
these projects... you're not going to leave as good of an impression as
someone who's really done their homework or as someone who *so* badly wants
to join NASA as an astronaut that they're willing to do everything
possible. (Motivation is one of the key areas you will be graded on for the
final evaluation, and throughout the whole process.)

Another test will involve probing of your lower intesines to detect any
potentially cancerous polyps or other problem conditions -- space is not a
good place to be if you've got these issues, and it's not the easiest of
tests because it involves enemas, doctors poking a video probe through one
of the body's openings, and going so far into there -- well past your
normal reflextive "I don't feel so good" point (but that's all it is...
it's just a reflex, so if you know that, the test becomes a little easier,
because you know you can at least ignore these odd sensations and just sit
tight).

One of the things they like to do is throw you in a few training sessions
with a variety of instructors (with varying personalities) and see how you
respond to training, teamwork, and adversity. A cardinal sin for anyone who
wishes to survive this process is to ever act grumpy or sarcastic when an
instructor's just told how horrible you were with that session. Perhaps
smile or acknowledge it friendly with 'I'll definitely need to work on that
more -- thank you for pointing out what I can improve'. But never to react
explosively even if you privately think the claim's without merit.

Being fit will significantly help you deal with that portion of the tests,
and also cut down on the things that NASA needs to take a closer scrutiny
at. So if you aren't already conscious about your fitness, start now! Look
at your body mass index, your blood presesure, glucose level, your caloric
consumption, your aerobic exercises (such as 3 mile daily jogs), balance of
food you eat, no serious flaw with body (organs, skin, teeth, mind, etc).
Part of the tests will definitely test your endurance and stamina so being
fit will help you deal with these so much better. Also, you could be up
against some military personnel who may have a head start with that stuff.

Then the boards (the main interview by a panel of people -- often
considered to be the make-or-break single portion of the whole process)
will ask you all sorts of questions, and clearly give you an insufficient
amount of time... so you have to make *hard* choices about how you want to
best answer it. Also, you have to figure out what the people there wants to
see. Do they want to see research geniuses? Do they want to see good team
players? Do they want to see good PR people? Do they want to see if you
have any hole in your knowledge? Do they want to see if you'll try to BS
them through weak spots? Do they want to see if you have any skeletons in
your closet? Do they want a technical down-to-the-atom answer or do they
want a well-rounded but solid technical answer?

The absolute worst things you can do at NASA is lie or misrepresent or
obfuscate *anything*. If you don't know something, promptly admit to it!
(You *will* be tested on this.) Also, you've got to have a keen sense of
'office politics' -- about other astronauts, about their favorite programs,
about management's direction and preferences, and navigate smoothly through
any 'choppy waters' that may come up. Not speaking poorly of anyone else is
generally a good strategy. Being intelligent and holding your ground even
if it's contrary to a favorite position of someone else may sometimes be
the best approach if they're testing to see how much of a backbone you have
and if you can intelligently evaluate things on basis of facts that you can
stand behind, solidly.

Also, one of the requirements for becoming an astronaut if going through
NASA directly (as an American; other countries will have their own
selection process and then submits names to NASA for training) will be
stuff like having citizenship in order to qualify for an no-stones-unturned
security background check equivalent to same stuff that holders of top
secret classification will need. (Yes, I know there are multiple levels and
areas of TS; let's not go into minutiae right now. ) This process is
designed to also rattle your closet to see if there's any skeletons in it
-- it's something you'd best be forthcoming with NASA *before* they find
out something about you!

(You *can* be foreign-born and still apply directly through NASA, but this
would require having successfully obtained U.S. citizenship as well as
being able to obtain top secret clearance... both are fairly lengthy and
rigorous processes.)

In the early days, a DUI or drug arrest/conviction didn't mean anything
much if it was kept quiet. But today, it very well could mean the
difference between being an astronaut or washed out early on. NASA
absolutely *hates* serious stains on their PR image, which they work so
hard to cultivate, and serious skeletons like these...well... So stay
clean! This is especially important for college students with aspirations
for an astronaut position to remember, especially since there's often a lot
of experimentation done with drinking and drugs at that time.

It's a very interesting and *extremely* thorough process, that's for sure!
They leave nothing to chance. They end up knowing more about you than your
own parents and even best friend.

The payoffs are incredible -- a ride into space, but it's a lot of *pure*
and sheer hard work in getting there. However, I think you're at a good age
to make key career/education choices that could very well land you with an
opportunity.

The various tests I mentioned are only merely the beginning of the
astronaut experience at NASA. There's just so much involved... and also, a
lot of heavy reading, and expected to pull your weight within various areas
of expertise (and even to learn new areas of expertise on the fly!), attend
lots of meetings, training sessions, planning, etc. This is one of the
reasons why they want someone with advanced degrees, because they're
capable of chewing through large quantities of highly specialized and
technical information as well as coming up with original contribution.

There's just no time to comfortably 'come up to speed' -- you will hit the
ground running from the moment you arrive at the hotel and meet the other
candidates, just simply because there's so much data to learn and mentally
assimilate, and things to be done.

Now... your homework is a little light reading

The astronaut selection process timeline:

http://www.nasajobs.nasa.gov/astronauts/timeline.htm

Basic requirements (note the word 'basic' -- usually expected to well
exceed these):

http://www.nasajobs.nasa.gov/astronauts/broch00.htm

Frequently asked (and answered!) questions:

http://www.nasajobs.nasa.gov/astronauts/faq.htm
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy...s/wannabe.html

Wanna see the application forms via the web?

http://www.nasajobs.nasa.gov/jobs/as...pplication.htm

I highly recommend checking out the application forms, even if you aren't
planning on applying right now... because it may help you figure out what
kind of stuff you want to do now in case you want to give it a serious try
sometime in the 'near future' (next 5-10 years).

Some more information about training:

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy.../training.html
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/.../asseltrn.html

An unofficial web site put together by prospective ASCAN hopefuls:

http://www.ashos.org/index2.html

The one above is **VERY HIGHLY RECOMMENDED**! Read everything. Everything.

It has a lot of questions and answers from both people at the same point in
your career (college, interest, etc) wondering how to best handle choices,
how to apply, etc... as well as from others who has been through all that
and offering tips and insight.

There is also a ~11 MB file that has a 9 year archive of every single mail
sent to that list (1993-2002) -- 3,850 messages, but highly recommended
reading. That's at:

http://www.ashos.org/astro_epostings.html

There's a separate archive file with only the [in]famous 'Vomit Comet'
postings for the really curious:

ftp://ftp.ashos.org/vomit-comet.postings

The 10 cardinal rules you must strive to NEVER violate as an ASCAN:

http://www.ashos.org/astro_ten_commandments.html

Very good in-depth tips about what NASA is looking for in successful ASCAN
candidates from people who knows:

http://www.ashos.org/Archive/selection.comments.bain
http://www.ashos.org/Archive/selection.comments.sotos
http://www.ashos.org/Archive/selecti...ments.overmyer
http://www.ashos.org/Archive/selection.comments.cullen

One of the tips is to not disregard recreational activities or hobbies that
would improve your well-rounded image or curry favor with certain people.
Sports, photography, skydiving, etc.

Another tip is to read every single astronaut biography to get a sense of
what kind of background you generally need to be a successful candidate.

-Dan

(E-mailed to original poster as a courtesy and posted to USENET as well.)

(Dan Huizenga) wrote:
What are generally the minimum requirements to become an astronaut on
the shuttle?

At least enough intelligence to educate oneself on the basics of a
topic prior to asking questions.

You fail this simple test.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

(Derek Lyons) wrote:
(Dan Huizenga) wrote:
What are generally the minimum requirements to become an astronaut on
the shuttle?

At least enough intelligence to educate oneself on the basics of a
topic prior to asking questions.

You fail this simple test.

Derek, I normally find your posts to be a positive contribution to the
group, but I think this one was a little toooo much from the hip.

Questions like this are often required to help the questioner figure
out what the proper way to approach the issue is. Look at it as the
first step in writing a term paper: write a short paragraph about
what the paper's topic is. After that you can use the bubbles drawing
or the outliner or 3x5 cards and go off to the library. Often times,
that short paragraph ends up getting tossed and a new one replaces it,
that may turn into the introductory paragraph of the final paper.

Or perhaps the proper way to view it is that Dan walks into the soda
shop after class, and spots Derek in a booth. Derek is home on leave,
it seems, and Dan realizes he has an opportunity to get a quick
picture of life beneath the waves: "Hey, Derek! Great to see you!
Hey, man, I've been wondering, when I go down to the recruiting
office, what do I need to tell the man to make sure *I* end up on a
boomer?"

And, as Pat Flannery pointed out in ssh, Googling is an art, and not
just turn the crank....

/dps

Derek, you're right, I didn't do as much homework as I could have
before asking here. I read through some of the basic NASA docs, but I
thought that asking these questions here would reveal information that
is a bit deeper than that contained within the NASA documentation - in
a way, I was doing my homework here. In the future, I'll make sure to
take your suggestion to heart, and I'll definitely need to work on
more thoroughly educating myself elsewhere before next time. Thank
you for pointing out how I can improve. ;-)
-Dan

(Derek Lyons) wrote in message ...
(Dan Huizenga) wrote:
What are generally the minimum requirements to become an astronaut on
the shuttle?

At least enough intelligence to educate oneself on the basics of a
topic prior to asking questions.

You fail this simple test.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

(Dan Huizenga) wrote:
Derek, you're right, I didn't do as much homework as I could have
before asking here. I read through some of the basic NASA docs,

It wasn't obvious that you had done so, as your very first question
(What are generally the minimum requirements to become an astronaut on
the shuttle?) is abundantly answered in those documents.

but I thought that asking these questions here would reveal information that
is a bit deeper than that contained within the NASA documentation -

*That* is what we excel at here, getting into the deeper stuff. But
you have to show you know the basics and then ask the deeper
questions.

in a way, I was doing my homework here. In the future, I'll make sure to
take your suggestion to heart, and I'll definitely need to work on
more thoroughly educating myself elsewhere before next time. Thank
you for pointing out how I can improve. ;-)

If you've lurked here a long time, you'll know I'm curt but mean well.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...

If you've lurked here a long time, you'll know I'm curt but mean well.

Curt B. Meanwell?

I thought you were Jim Oberg?



D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote ...

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...

If you've lurked here a long time, you'll know I'm curt but mean well.

Curt B. Meanwell?

I thought he was 'mean but does curt well' anyway.

"Paul Blay" wrote in message
...
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote ...

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...

If you've lurked here a long time, you'll know I'm curt but mean well.

Curt B. Meanwell?

I thought he was 'mean but does curt well' anyway.

You'd have to ask Curt about that.