[artmageddon]

I'm surprised that they will accept a graduation degree in lieu of 1,000+ hours of pilot-in-command time in a jet aircraft. I'm a private pilot of single-engine propeller airplanes and getting my degree in CS is certainly no substitute!

I'm applying tonight.

[_delirium]

I believe it qualifies you for a different job; NASA traditionally splits people into the roles that require a pilot background (Pilot, Mission Commander, etc.), and those that require scientific credentials (Mission Specialist).

[numlocked]

They have 2 paths to qualify - piloting astronauts and non-piloting. So it's not a substitute, per se.

[philwelch]

That's an interesting throwback to the days when all astronauts were test pilots, but it's kind of stupid nowadays, for reasons Robert Zubrin points out in his Mars Direct plan. It's simply easier to train a qualified engineer or scientist to be a pilot than it is to train a qualified pilot to be an engineer or scientist--and on any mission that's at all interesting, it's silly to waste space on an astronaut who isn't an engineer or a scientist.

[metachris]

I read it that they are looking for jet experience specifically. Doubt that propeller machine experience is a substitute. Good luck though, I hope you make it into the interview round!

[nobody31415926]

Flight up = pro-programmed Soyuz module.

Flying = ISS is in an orbit, very little aerobatic ability

Flight down = Soyuz module pre-programmed to hit target

But NASA will swap a graduate degree in something scientific for having buzzed around pretending to shoot people in a F16/18. Perhaps they could extend this to other parts of their operation? HST staff = extensive peer-reviewed published papers, or experience with a 105mm howitzer.