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

291–300 of 343 posts

Re: NASA Force

#291

Post by porridgeraisin »

jvanderbot wrote: post #154
porridgeraisin wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 inter…

makes sense, thanks

Re: NASA Force

#292

Post by dkural »

thegrim33 wrote: post #193
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…

>> budget squeeze >> will still be around after this congress and the agency can stabilize once again 2026 budget - 24.4 billion 2025 budget - 24.8 billion 2024 budget - 25.3 billion 2023 budget - 25.3 billion 2022 budget - 24.0 billion 2021 budget - 23.2 billion 2020 budget - 22.6 billion 2019 budget - 21.5 billion 2018 budget - 20.7 billion 2017 budget - 19.6 billion 2016 budget - 19.2 billion What part of these nu…

This part: Let's now adjust for inflation so you can see the budget squeeze. $19.2 billion in 2016 dollars is worth $26.4 billion and change, once adjusted for inflation, in March 2026. Feel free to do it yourself. Magic of compounding.

24.4 for 2026 is notably less than 26.4. Budget squeeze.

Re: NASA Force

#294

Post by adalacelove »

thegrim33 wrote: post #193
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…

>> budget squeeze >> will still be around after this congress and the agency can stabilize once again 2026 budget - 24.4 billion 2025 budget - 24.8 billion 2024 budget - 25.3 billion 2023 budget - 25.3 billion 2022 budget - 24.0 billion 2021 budget - 23.2 billion 2020 budget - 22.6 billion 2019 budget - 21.5 billion 2018 budget - 20.7 billion 2017 budget - 19.6 billion 2016 budget - 19.2 billion What part of these nu…

That's like 4 times the ESA budget, and still insignificant compared to the money poured into AI. Several companies could cover that budget with quarterly profits.

Re: NASA Force

#295

Post by SiempreViernes »

elictronic wrote: post #249
SiempreViernes wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The admin has tried two times in a row to cut the total budget by 20%, and the science budget by 50% So, probably that squeeze?

Congress sets the budget not the president. The administrations budget is aspirational, and if they want to force it they are required to use political savvy and whatever influence they have built up. Yeah so zero influence as all of that is towards cover ups, stock manipulation, and incompetence.

Technically true, but the president also selects the administrator of NASA, and this presidency isn't terribly fussed about following laws about how allocated money can be used.

So don't be surprised if suddenly half the NASA budget is used to pay for a second ballroom or more missiles to CENTCOM.

Re: NASA Force

#297

Post by tempodox »

rozab wrote: post #182
sailfast wrote: post #113

"Build a website - it's almost like you got the job done already" - Someone in the White House OEOB The new National Design Studio that replaced the USDS does not seem to be capable of building a website that is accessible, performant, and not overly bombastic / hyperbolic. Completely unreadable. Animation fails at the top, on a decently provisioned Mac laptop with 16GB of RAM. Either way - it's unfortunate that the…

The copy also doesn't seem to be written by someone with a good command of English, even ChatGPT would do better >technologists inside the systems that power American spaceflight, aeronautics, and scientific discovery. You work on real missions, alongside the teams building them, and your contributions move from concept to operation. For a few days, access is granted to this work. The number is extremely limited. The…

The Slop Cop finds it highly LLM-y:

https://awnist.com/slop-cop#technologists%20inside%20the%20s...

Re: NASA Force

#298

Post by tempodox »

adonovan wrote: post #216
input_sh wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...and equally substanceless as anything coming out of National Design Studio. Here's an almost identical one (design-wise): https://genesis.energy.gov/ And another one: https://techforce.gov/ And another one: https://safedc.gov/ All basically the same one-pager with different vibe-coded graphics and like 500 words of text.

This administration does love "force".

I thought it was about a military space unit.

Re: NASA Force

#299

Post by tempodox »

sph wrote: post #80
tiberone wrote: post #36

> NASA Force technologists inside the systems that power American spaceflight, aeronautics, and scientific discovery. Am I an idiot or does their leading sentence make absolutely no sense?

"Force" is the verb.

Agreed. It proves that LLMs can be subtle.

Re: NASA Force

#300

Post by ninjagoo »

krapp wrote: post #210
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…

>EDIT: Good Lord, I get the cynicism but at least someone at NASA HR is trying new things to keep the lights on. Why bother? Americans clearly don't believe in science anymore, and the American government can't be trusted to fund it properly, or to not rewrite or defund research because of wrongthink or "DEI." If I were working for NASA, or even a possible candidate for working for NASA, I'd get my passport in order…

> Americans clearly don't believe in science anymore

There's about a third that lean that way or atleast they don't care, and they have gained control of the government because of various factors, namely,

part of the middle third disillusioned with economics (left behind) and wanting a change,

another part of the middle third staying home because of geopolitics,

and yet another part of the middle third falling prey to media biased by right-wing billionaire/corporatist capture.

Any suggestions for a long-term fix for this problem?

Post reply on HN