Houston, We Have a Problem.
Ok — I got the cliché out of the way (but don’t worry, I’ll use it a few more times).
I won’t go into the journey that eventually landed me my dream job at NASA’s human spaceflight headquarters — the Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston, Texas — but let’s just say it wasn’t without obstacles that constantly punched me in the face, over and over and over (figuratively speaking, well, mostly). I was determined to get to JSC…which I did.
I have had the humble honor and privilege to work at JSC in human spaceflight alongside many amazing and wicked smart humans for almost 20 years; holding roles from project engineer to project manager, to system manager, and eventually to senior leader. I supported over 50 Space Shuttle missions, flew over 10,000 parabolas testing experiments in the infamous “vomit commit” simulating microgravity (NASA’s KC-135 aircraft), worked on numerous life-critical Space Shuttle and Space Station projects and meticulous hardware failure investigations, and had the unfortunate honor of being part of the Space Shuttle Columbia accident investigation team. I am blessed to have worked at JSC, to have seen and done what very few Americans have, and to have made so many special friends — — I would not for a moment change it.
Along the way, I never lost sight of my end-state, to become a U.S. Astronaut. I researched the Astronaut selection process from its inception, scouring all publicly available information, trying to discover patterns, clues, and hidden gems, and asking my Astronaut friends “how did you get selected, what’s the secret sauce?” At this point, you’re probably thinking, “hey, doesn’t NASA publish requirements?” Of course it does, but they are laughable. Not only does NASA set the bar ridiculously low, it also has no depth nor breadth. NASA will argue this is done on purpose to keep the aperture ridiculously wide, while I would argue the recruiting, screening, and selection strategy haven’t substantially changed in decades and needs a massive make-over.
How do I know this? I had the special privilege of being part of the “highly qualified” applicant pool in 2012, where I was 1 of 120 applicants, out of 6000+, who NASA brought to the Johnson Space Center for a week-long in-person interview for the Astronaut candidate class of 2013. I was on my second combat deployment in Afghanistan when I received the great news, and had to clear all sorts of hurdles to go from a combat theater to JSC then back to a combat theater (personally, professionally, and family-wise; an unbelievable journey and a chapter of a future book). Although I signed a non-disclosure agreement prior to the interview, I can tell you that my peek behind the curtain validated my decades of research that the process is simply outdated and full of inequities. You can find numerous articles about the process, dating back to the 1980’s. Because the process hasn’t substantially changed, the articles are mostly accurate (there have been very minor changes over the past 3 decades, most notably adding a psych test; and no, partnering with LinkedIn doesn’t count as a “significant” change).
Before I go on, let me address three important points (i.e., let me address the critics and anyone sending negative vibes my way). First, I am a true believer of NASA and our human space program — I dedicated 20 years of life to NASA; Second, I am not being critical of the selection process out of spite of not being selected, rather to influence change for my kids and others that follow in my footsteps and NASA’s public branding (was I upset? damn right I was, but that anger has fueled my fire to see change); Third, I want to be clear that those selected to become Astronauts are good people who are highly educated with varying levels of life experiences, but America has a massive amount of good candidates — guaranteed to have numerous on-par and even better candidates — who simply weren’t selected. Why? Let’s unpack it.
Call me silly, but l am a fan of first principles.
What are the fundamental roles for America’s Astronauts? Simple: #1 — Be NASA’s space travelers and #2 — Be NASA’s brand ambassadors. There is a lot that goes inside each role, but again, let’s stick to first principles. The process designed to select Astronaut candidates AND the regimen to continuously develop existing Astronauts must have strong links back to the above mentioned two fundamental roles, period. Although I have ideas, thoughts, and perspectives about both, my posts will only focus on the recruiting, screening, and selection process.
The Astronaut recruiting, screening, and selection process is nothing more than a Human Resources (HR) process. At the core, all Human Resources (HR) related recruiting, screening, and selection processes are nothing more than a de-risking process. A good process attempts to de-risk across the candidate pool by amplifying qualifying attributes and weeding out disqualifying attributes. In other words, give me the best candidates who maximize achieving our needs (roles), but minimize our concerns (baggage). We can all agree that as humans, industry, and technology evolves, so should the HR process. Not evolving “how” to seek for new employees will make the organization outdated, and worst-case, irrelevant. Well, most companies wouldn’t survive if they did not evolve; however, there is only one type of organization that can survive in the absence of evolving hiring practices, the U.S. government, specifically NASA Astronaut recruiting.
NASA is still riding the Apollo publicity wave, but it will soon come to a crashing halt. Public support of NASA is generally “indifferent” and ill-informed of the great public benefit NASA provides. I had numerous experiences of asking random public just outside the JSC gates if they supported NASA. Over 50% of the time, I received these answers (mind you, this was literally just outside JSC’s gates — “sure,” “I suppose,” “we have a NASA here?” “I don’t care.” Generally speaking, NASA is a self-licking ice-cream cone (I know, because I ate gallons and gallons!). I mention this because it directly ties into Astronaut role #2. NASA’s brand is known by Apollo and Astronauts (not even the Space Shuttle); the Apollo program doesn’t exist, so by process of elimination, that leaves PR heavy-lifting on the shoulders of our Astronauts (and related matters, such as the recruiting, screening, and selection process) to rebuild NASA’s national brand and gain public prominence.
Completely redesigning the Astronaut recruiting, screening, and selection process will benefit NASA’s brand and fix a non-transparent, broken, and outdated process. Let’s explore how.
1. Establish recruiting requirements that are commensurate with the type of Astronaut we all “theoretically” expect (“…ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country…”). These should be anchored around six (6) core Astronaut acumens…
- Technical
- Public speaking / public relations
- Physical fitness
- Diplomatic
- Leadership
- Community impact
Further granularity would be designed into each acumen, but by establishing and publicly declaring these, it sets national-level expectations and a blueprint for tens of thousands of kids across America. Whether they get selected or not, or perhaps changed their minds in college, the mere fact that they actively worked on each acumen throughout their journey means NASA made a contribution to them becoming productive citizens.
2. Embrace, harness, and pay attention to all NASA Astronaut applicants. While small relative to the U.S. population (0.01% +/-), NASA Astronaut applicants are scattered in communities across America. Outside of NASA, the next cohort of “low hanging fruit” to capture are the applicants (they already love NASA). By establishing a low-cost process to build a special virtual relationship with each applicant could pay massive dividends for NASA down the road. NASA can tap into this tribe for strategic messaging, increase their support for NASA programs, etc.
3. Recruiting, screening, and selection. As an applicant to one of the most prestigious non-political jobs in America, I believe it must be fair, it must have real and appropriate standards, and it must be transparent. While I’m not advocating for the exact same types of screening methods used to select the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs, I am absolutely advocating to bring back the concept of “real tryouts” aligned to the real standards (acumens) I mentioned above. Let’s measure one’s technical skill, public speaking skill, community impact skill, and physical fitness skill. If I don’t get selected, at least I will know why, and not because of black magic.
In my next post, I will share key experiences of my Navy career and their contribution to the birth of Athlete Foundry.
KC Chhipwadia
CEO & Founder
Athlete Foundry, Inc.
