Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, again, everyone. How many of you out there wanted to be astronauts when you grew up? Back in the 1960s and '70s, that was one of the most common answers among kids and teens when they were asked what they wanted to be. Of course, not everyone grew up to be an astronaut. Did you know that Hillary Clinton has said over the years that she wrote to NASA as a kid only to be rejected because she was a girl? Not everyone wants to be an astronaut.

In 2022, a Morning Consult poll found that 54% of Americans ages 13 to 38 would become an influencer if given the chance. A Harris Poll study of 3,000 kids found that if choosing between a teacher, a professional athlete, a musician, an astronaut, or a YouTuber, the first choice, nearly 30%, ranked YouTuber as their top choice, very different from 1969, the year that the US puts people on the moon. While the qualifications for being an astronaut are probably a lot more physically and intellectually grueling than being a YouTube influencer, it's still a moonshot, and having a dream job of any sort will probably mean you have to overcome at least some rejection.

NASA astronaut Mike Massimino, who was rejected from NASA three times over the course of seven years, now shares his story of overcoming hurdles to become an astronaut in a new book called Moonshot: A NASA Astronaut’s Guide to Achieving the Impossible. He's now Dr. Massimino, not only a NASA astronaut, but an engineering professor at Columbia, a regular on the TV show The Big Bang Theory, as some of you know, and the first human to tweet from space. Dr. Massimino, thanks so much for joining us. Welcome to WNYC today.

Mike Massimino: I really appreciate it.

Brian Lehrer: You write, "The astronaut job interview is more than just an interview with the astronaut selection board. It's a whole week of examinations and hurdles to jump." I think anybody who dreamed of being an astronaut as a kid would want to know, what did the initial interview involve or that process?

Mike Massimino: Well, for me, it took me a while just to get to the interview stage. There's thousands of people that apply. The first two times that I applied for the selections they were having in 1990 and then another class in 1992, I just received a rejection letter, but the third time I applied, the next time they had a selection after that, I'd applied and was able to become a finalist. That's where you go for an interview, and now out of the thousands, they're down to 120 candidates.

You go in there in groups of 20 is the way they used to do it. They still do it in a similar way. They've split up the week now between like a lot of job interviews where we have a first interview, and then if they are still interested, you'll have a second interview. Now it's a little bit shorter. That first interview is just a couple of days. Back when I applied, they only had one big long interview week for you, and you would be there with 19 other candidates.

You showed up on Saturday, on Sunday you had some written exams to take and you got a bit of a briefing on what was going to happen. Then everyone had a different schedule, but it involved lots of medical tests throughout the week going from Monday to Friday. Medical test is about everything you can imagine. They would look into-- see how you were doing. There's a selection board interview with the selection board which had about 15 people on it.

When I was there, I was cheered by John Young who was one of the 12 people that walked on the moon. He was still an active astronaut at that time even though he was in his late 60s. It was also social events, and you were encouraged to go around and meet the other astronauts that were there. They really want to get to know you very well. It is pretty intensive, but also, it was really an extraordinary week for me. I really loved it.

Brian Lehrer: You mentioned the medical exam, and I see that one of the times you were rejected, you were medically disqualified because of your eyesight. What? They don't allow contacts or glasses in space?

Mike Massimino: Well, they do. In fact, they do. It was just a requirement at that time to be selected that you had to be able to see fairly well. If you were a test pilot candidate, you had to see at 20/20 uncorrected vision. If you were a mission specialist like I was, an engineer, a civilian, or a scientist, or medical doctor, I was a civilian, or even some of the military people who were non-pilots, the requirement back then was being able to see 20/150 without your contacts or glasses.

They've changed all that now. I don't even think they have a vision requirement any longer. It's just you need to be correctable to 20/20 and have healthy eyes. Back then, they still had those, when I looked at it, outdated requirements. Once you got in, you could wear glasses or contacts. That was fine. I wore contacts throughout my career at NASA. I still wear them. I wore them when I space walked even, but it was a barrier to being selected. It was a qualification that you needed to be able to meet that vision standard. I couldn't do it. I failed their eye exam, and I was medically disqualified.

Once that happens, they won't even read your application for future selections. I had asked, there were some medical things that people discovered that they were able to have a procedure or get a second opinion or maybe overcome, but with the eye exam, they were like, "No." It was the number one reason for disqualification, for medical disqualification back then was the eye exam, and no one that I know of was able to overcome that. I figured there had to be a way around it, and I found out about vision training that was done mainly with kids while their eyes were still developing.

If they had eye issues, there were things they could do to improve their vision. I found an optometrist who specialized in that. I told her I could be really immature, and she wouldn't know the difference between me and any seven-year-old, please help me, and she did, and I was able to pick up a couple of lines on the eye chart just so I could overturn that disqualification and compete again. It didn't guarantee me that they would consider me again, but at least I could apply again, and I did and got another interview the next time around and got picked.

Brian Lehrer: Wow, sounds like something you could make a billion dollars on if you wanted to sell that. Here, folks, is how you can prove your eyesight without glasses or contacts.

Mike Massimino: Yes, it's really just to get over that test. I think glasses and contacts work fine, and LASIK seems to be a good thing too if you want to look into that, but it really was just to get over that standard so I could be considered to be an astronaut.

Brian Lehrer: To get in again.

Mike Massimino: Yes.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, have you ever wanted to ask an astronaut a question but you never had one over to dinner? Mike Massimino is here with his new book Moonshot: A NASA Astronaut’s Guide to Achieving the Impossible. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692. You give a little exercise in the book. "When you feel like your dreams are out of reach, when you feel like the world is conspiring against you and you have no hope, remember that one in a million is not zero and ask yourself these questions." You want to give our listeners a few of those questions? I don't think we have time to go down the whole list, but do you want to do a few?

Mike Massimino: Yes, sure. Do you want to read them or [crosstalk]?

Brian Lehrer: No, why don't you do if you're comfortable doing it?

Mike Massimino: Yes. I think the point of the story that I told you is that there's always a way to at least keep trying, hopefully. I think that, for me, it was just the thought of not being able to try or being prevented from trying again was what was most troubling. As long as you try, I think, to me, that's success. Successful people are not those that never met with failure, they are those that never let failure stop them.

As I'm turning pages here, some of these are examples here. I'll just read you one. "If I give up now knowing that I won't know what might have happened if I kept trying, how will I feel 10 years from now, 20 years from now, 50 years from now?" I think, for me, that's what I felt like is that I could live with myself if I continued to be rejected, but I wouldn't be happy with myself if I just gave up.

The one in a million, not zero, what that means is an epiphany I had after my second rejection when I was up at MIT, which is a very math-oriented place, of course. I thought about my chances of ever becoming an astronaut, and I thought, well, maybe it is one out of a million, but that's a non-zero outcome. That's a decimal point followed by a lot of zeros but a one at the end. I always try to think of that one at the end of that line of zeros if your chances are low.

The only way that that one turns into a zero is if you give up or you don't try. Then that one at the end of those zeros turns into a zero as well and your probability of success is, by definition, zero. You will not be successful. I think we owe it to ourselves, you owe it to yourself to give yourself a chance to be successful. That's the title and the reasoning and a little bit of the story behind the Chapter One in the book.

Brian Lehrer: Richard in Babylon has a question for you. Richard, you're on WNYC with Astronaut Mike Massimino. Hi.

Richard: Oh, thank you, Brian. Thank you, Mike. I had a question. There was a show on-- Ira Flatow did something on Science Friday several months ago about the future decommissioning of the International Space Station, where they want to typically just splash it down at some site in the Pacific Ocean to avoid any potential injuries on the populated areas. I'm curious, it seems like there was a lot of blood, sweat, and tears that went into getting all that equipment, and the manpower involved in getting it all up into space, into a low Earth orbit.

Is there any potential for moving out of low Earth orbit and setting it onto a trans-lunar orbit and getting it into an orbit around the moon? Seems like there's a lot of potential raw materials that could be used in future lunar landing sites or habitation sites that might be able to be cannibalized from the International Space Station.

Brian Lehrer: Interesting question. Mike?

Mike Massimino: Yes. I think it's an interesting idea. First, I don't think we really know exactly what's going to happen with the International Space Station. It's working really well, and as you said, we put a lot of time and effort into it, a lot of taxpayers' money, and it's turning out some great science results and now as a laboratory in space. I think as long as it's working, there's a very good chance that it will continue to operate beyond what they expect.

There's also the plan to have low Earth orbit science laboratories like the ISS turned over to private enterprise, and there is a plan to, at first, maybe start with the ISS to do that and maybe add onto it. Then, eventually, will be de-orbited, but the idea of taking it and putting it on the moon or putting it near the moon, it's a clever idea, but I don't think it's really feasible.

I don't think it's possible to launch from that location. You're still a long way away from the moon. You would have to have a really huge rocket motor to do that to escape the Earth's gravity and get to the moon. I don't think that that's feasible. I think that what would be more likely is I think we will have orbiting laboratories as they call it, a gateway as they're looking to build, as we explore the moon.

If you looked into it and did all the math and all the calculations, you would find it makes more sense to launch the moon habitat from Earth. Plus, the ISS is not necessarily the prime laboratory that you would want around the moon, but it's a good point. If we could keep it going somehow, I think we should, but as long as it's still working, I think they'll keep it in lower Earth orbit. It is really not feasible to blast it off to the moon. You would find that it's easier or better, more efficient just to launch again from Earth to the moon.

Brian Lehrer: Peter in Brooklyn, you're on WNYC with former astronaut and current engineering professor at Columbia, Mike Massimino. Hi, Peter.

Peter: Hey, how are you? Hi, Dr. Mike. My question was if you had experienced the overview effect in viewing Earth from space.

Mike Massimino: The overview effect I think has become like a catchphrase for your impressions of looking at the planet, what you felt. I write about it in the book a bit. There's a chapter called Be Amazed, and I was amazed by viewing our planet and the stars and the moon and everything else I could see from that vantage point. It gives you a different perspective.

The thought that I had looking at our planet was, there's no words really to describe it, but the thoughts I had were, "This must be a view from heaven and so beautiful. What a wonderful view of our beautiful planet." Then about a minute later, not even a moment later, that was replaced by another thought, which was, "This must be what heaven looks like." I felt like I was looking into absolute paradise, and I still feel that way about the planet, even though I'm on Earth now, and I don't see it from that vantage point.

I actually am able to engage with the planet, just like all of us. You don't have to go to space to enjoy the beauty of our planet. That perspective changed me, thinking that we do live in paradise and we need to try to enjoy every day and at least once a day be amazed by what's around us, not just the natural beauty of the ocean or the Grand Canyon, but also even the buildings around New York City, the architecture, or the faces on the New York City subway.

There's a beauty to all of it. It is amazing that we are all here, absolutely amazing that we get to live in such a beautiful place, even though there's a lot of bad things going on. The planet itself is an amazing place, and what we've done in living here has sometimes not been great, but overall, it's amazing what we've been able to accomplish. The other thing that changed the way I think is my concept of home.

I grew up in the New York area, and my home I always thought of growing up was my town, Franklin Square, and then New York, and as an astronaut in the United States, I identified that with my home, but I'll always be from all those places. Now, after being in space and seeing the planet for the amount of time I have from space, when I think of home, I think of Earth and I think of it as a place that all of us share, no matter where we're from, no matter who you are. Anywhere on the planet, we all share the same beautiful home.

Brian Lehrer: Someday when we get visitors from far, far away, we'll say, "I consider home this solar system." John on the Lower East Side, you're on WNYC with Mike Massimino. Hi, John.

John: Hi. Good morning. Mike, a pleasure to meet you through the radio. My question is the Artemis program to get us back to the moon, there's also-- SpaceX announced that they're building the next, or they're designing the next version of Starship 2 that would be a lander to the moon. Is this being integrated with Artemis, or is that their own program separate from Artemis?

Mike Massimino: I think it eventually will be. In fact, the lander is integrated with Artemis. Going in right now, we're looking at the Artemis 2 mission, which is going to be flying the Orion spacecraft with four astronauts on the space launch system around the moon a few times. Then for the next mission, Artemis 3 would be the landing, and yes, SpaceX is involved.

I'm not sure exactly where the finalization of the contract is. I don't think it's just SpaceX. I think there's other companies as well that will be involved, but NASA will be working with some of the companies to design the lander. What may be in question is maybe there might be more that some of the private companies do. Right now, the launch vehicle is a space launch system.

The lander is being developed by SpaceX and other companies, but who knows, as we go along, it might be that also the launch vehicle gets designed by a private company eventually. I think a lot is still to be determined, but to answer your question, yes, it's a joint effort.

Brian Lehrer: Does any of that bother you as a NASA astronaut? I saw a Scientific American report recently about a brain drain from NASA's jet propulsion laboratory that it said could pose problems for the space agency's ambitious science plans, and I guess reportedly, people are leaving NASA for these private companies like SpaceX.

Mike Massimino: I don't think it's-- If NASA might be having-- I'm not familiar with the article. Overall, for the space program, I think it's a good thing. I think it's difficult for the government to do things because they're dealing with taxpayers' dollars, and they can't do everything they want to do. They have to be good stewards of the tax dollars as best as they can do with it.

All these lofty goals we have are very difficult for the government to do, for NASA to do. When you have a private company that is able to make decisions more quickly, more efficiently, they take greater risks, not necessarily with life, but they move more quickly. They're not dealing with taxpayers' dollars. If they see a way to make a profit, then I think you're opening yourselves up to more success.

Brian Lehrer: Could that be a problem too, if space exploration has so far been in the public interest as the government determines it and our democracy and it's becoming more and more a capitalist venture for private gain? Do you think there's a problem in that, in what gets done or doesn't get done in space?

Mike Massimino: I think you got to be careful how you say that because I think that it is-- a lot of what the private companies are doing is they're helping NASA. For example, the way we get astronauts to space now, as you were saying in the pursuit of knowledge and science and exploration, is we're using the SpaceX Dragon to get us there. I think that what it is, is that they're helping the United States NASA fulfill its objectives when we talked about the moon lander as well.

I think that the government has a role, as you're saying, for the public good. I think the private enterprise is able to help with that, but in addition to that, they're also able to use these services to launch satellites or paying customers or other countries that might be interested in going. I don't think it's necessarily counter to what NASA has, and also, one of the goals of a government agency like NASA is to spin off technology to help the US economy, similar to the way the government helped with the development of airplanes, and now we have a thriving airline industry.

The hope, even back with the shuttle, was at one point the shuttle would be turned over to private enterprise to be used to stimulate the economy. That didn't work with the shuttle. We had the first accident, and that ended that discussion, but now I think we're seeing some of the benefits of having an agreement between the government and private enterprise that I think benefits both the government and private enterprises.

Brian Lehrer: Hey, last question. I mentioned in the intro the decline in people responding, kids responding that they want to be astronauts when they grow up compared to the 1960s or '70s. Now I want to be a YouTube influencer seems to top the list according to the reporting that we saw. In a way, you've gotten to do both, right? You were an astronaut but you played yourself on The Big Bang Theory, the sitcom. I read that you were playing yourself on PBS's kid show Sid the Science Kid, though I never saw that one. How would you compare being an astronaut and being a TV star?

Mike Massimino: I think being an astronaut for me is the best job I could have ever had and dreamed about doing. I think you ask kids what they want to do, they want to do all kinds of things. I think though, as far as inspirationally, why we compare the time now to back in the time in Apollo when I was six years old, when they landed on the moon. I think that the students that I have at Columbia, what I've seen is that there still is a great interest in space travel.

When I arrived there at Columbia 10 years ago, soon after I arrived, some students approached me that they wanted to start a space club. It was three students, the initial members of the Columbia Space Initiative. We now have over 400 student members, 280 that are very active, that show up every week to the meetings. They've flown two experiments in space over the last just a couple of years. That would be unheard of. That's another advantage to having the private companies. They flew one on a Blue Origin vehicle and another one on a SpaceX vehicle to the Space Station.

I think there's a lot of interest in there, and I think it's not just working for NASA anymore. Like you mentioned, there was a bit of a drain maybe at NASA or [unintelligible 00:22:22] you mentioned. That's unfortunate, but I think it's because there's so many options now. I don't think it's a lack of interest. I think that there's more things that young people can get involved in with the space program. Yes, they can hopefully still go work at NASA and some of the big contractors, but now they can also work at some of these smaller companies.

I think whatever kids are interested in, that's great, or young people might have these answers here or there, but as far as the space program goes, I think there's a lot of interest overall more even than when I was a kid because it was an impossible thing, or at least I thought it was, in some aspects of it, to get involved with the space program. Now it's more accessible. There's more access to space, there's more things going on. It's more of a realizable career, I think, than it was years ago.

Brian Lehrer: Mike Massimino. His new book is Moonshot: A NASA Astronaut’s Guide to Achieving the Impossible. Thank you so much. It was great to have you on.

Mike Massimino: I really appreciate it, Brian. Thanks for the great questions from the audience.

Copyright © 2023 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.