Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NASA Force

nasaforce.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 343 posts

Re: NASA Force

#151

Post by mikeocool »

tialaramex wrote: post #84
Avicebron wrote: post #29

Did anyone scroll down far enough to see the "automate air traffic controllers"? I guess technically it's aeronautics but I didn't know that was part of NASA

One of the most important things NASA does, ignoring for a moment the unknowable value of say, discovering that Mars once had microbial life, is ASRS https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/ You know how (scheduled, ie you buy tickets to SF, no prior relation to the crew, money for a service) aviation is incredibly safe? Well, one way you can continue increasing safety when you've already fixed all the things which keep going wron…

Irrelevant side note:

If you looked at https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/ and thought, wow this webpage must 25 years old, you would be incorrect! In 2000, they had a very 1990s website with the option for a flash version and non-flash version: https://web.archive.org/web/20000407212204/http://asrs.arc.n...

The early versions of this design arrived in 2008, though it has a sweet sweet flash header complete with audio until 2021.

An even more irrelevant side note: it appears that archive.org has a javascript based flash emulator built in to run old flash websites, which is pretty amazing.

Re: NASA Force

#154

Post by jvanderbot »

porridgeraisin wrote: post #146
OhMeadhbh wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a fair number of engineers at centers (Stennis, Ames, Kennedy, etc.) that are government employees. When I was NASA-adjacent, it seemed they wrote the specs and testing regimes. I think the government even did some of the testing with government-employed test engineers and technicians. But yeah, a lot of the manufacturing is done by contractors. There's a joke in the aero world that F-16s are designed by pe…

Makes sense. What about on the basic research side? Is that done mostly through academia grants or are there in-house folks in the centers?

Each NASA center maintains in-house engineers and scientists, if for no other reason than to oversee and critique contracted work.

But in reality they do significant amounts of directed research using "burden" funded research for their on internal needs, and grant work for NASA and other agencies (like DOE).

I worked at JPL, and worked with folks at Ames for various reasons. Both centers try to carve out enough internal time to research new mission concepts, new ways of accomplishing existing mission concepts, or new basic technologies that have dual use for missions/commercial appliations. All of this would qualify as basic research similar to what would happen at Caltech or Stanford, the nearby official/unofficial partners.

I attended all kinds of conferences and agency-level meetings with researchers from many other agencies / nasa centers as well, all mostly aimed at finding out how to better explore space (new missions), or improve our existing exploration capabilities, either with new or by adapting existing tech.

NASA has an entire reporting pipeline called "New Technology Reports" that makes all of this research immediately public, and a deep tradition of spinning off commercial businesses to carry it forward if it turns out to be a good idea.

Re: NASA Force

#155

Post by [deleted] »

scrumper wrote: post #11

Two things: - I like the rolling Moon animation very much. - This seems like a clever way of getting talent involved during a budget squeeze, presumably with the hope that some of those they attract will still be around after this congress and the agency can stabilize once again. I guess it's also a neat kind of try-before-you-buy for both sides. NASA is prestigious and one of the very few places one could do purely…

[deleted]

Re: NASA Force

#156

Post by voodoo_child »

pona-a wrote: post #149

[flagged]

If I’m not misunderstanding; Its not a complex project, and allows them bootstrap a recruitment campaign fast to take advantage of Artemis hype. I don’t understand why being vibe coded or reusing/recycling other designs matters?

Re: NASA Force

#157

Post by tonymet »

I envisioned a tactical unit like For All Mankind. I can’t imagine that China would allow the US to colonize the moon. It’s effectively an infinite nuke factory. Any Heinlein fan would recognize that.

Re: NASA Force

#159

Post by rationalist »

beej71 wrote: post #15
rafram wrote: post #10

Another barely usable website from the "National Design Studio." I wish they'd take a cue from gov.uk (or even the US Digital Service and 18F, which they gutted) and build clean, functional, and accessible sites... but the crew of web developers who are willing to work for this administration seem way too obsessed with this defense-tech startup landing page aesthetic to care about usability. The developer of this scr…

It misbehaves on Android FF, as well.

It works on my Android FF.

Re: NASA Force

#160

Post by EricRiese »

Experience necessary. From Assessment 1, which you only get to after spending $16 ordering your college transcript...

> I have 1 year of directly related specialized experience equivalent to at least the GS-13 level in the Federal service that included: Performing program/project management of space, aeronautical flight systems or experimental aircraft/aircraft systems that involve planning, researching, designing, developing, testing and evaluating, or completing cost analyses; Analyzing, designing, or operating space flight systems, aeronautical flight systems, experimental aircraft/aircraft systems, or structures operating throughout the earth's atmosphere; Developing requirements and integrating aerospace or flight/ground systems (e.g., payloads, hardware/software, scientific instruments, communication equipment, cargo, or any other specialized equipment).

Post reply on HN