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

141–150 of 343 posts

Re: NASA Force

#141

Post by OhMeadhbh »

porridgeraisin wrote: post #73
jvanderbot wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No

What kind of research happens outside academia-attached labs like JPL and outside MIC firms like lockheed/boeing?

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 people Ph.D.'s, manufactured by people with Masters degrees, flown by people with a Batchelor's degree in History and maintained by people with a High School Diploma.

It turns out you have to make jobs for people at all levels of education and experience.

Re: NASA Force

#142

Post by [deleted] »

hellojesus wrote: post #30

Why is this called Nasa Force when the linked job is for an Areospace Engineer? The usa.jobs site only shows 15 open reqs for Nasa, and they are almost all engineering roles, save a few accounting/finance ones. Does that mean there are legitimately no other jobs open for tech-related folks? What is the point of the fancy landing page (that provides zero actual info) if that's the case? No Data Science or developer op…

[deleted]

Re: NASA Force

#143

Post by chasd00 »

jacobsenscott wrote: post #76
hellojesus wrote: post #30

Why is this called Nasa Force when the linked job is for an Areospace Engineer? The usa.jobs site only shows 15 open reqs for Nasa, and they are almost all engineering roles, save a few accounting/finance ones. Does that mean there are legitimately no other jobs open for tech-related folks? What is the point of the fancy landing page (that provides zero actual info) if that's the case? No Data Science or developer op…

> Highly skilled early- to mid- career engineers, technologists, and innovators join NASA for focused term appointments, typically 1–2 years with the possibility of extension, to solve complex... is somewhere in that word salad. I think it's an internship?

I guess what they want is a short term resource which would typically be a contractor or consultant but maybe they have to hire an FTE. So they're saying it's going to get real boring after year 2 so we expect you to leave. Sounds like a good deal for a new grad, bottom bullet on the resume would be a year or two at NASA.

Re: NASA Force

#144

Post by pona-a »

rib3ye wrote: post #99
kokanee wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This website is vibe coded

I am trying to understand, are you saying marketing always needs to be hand-rolled?

If you want to me to care about what you have to say, I'd prefer if you cared enough to write it yourself. Especially on on taxpayer money. If I can spot it as slop, you have a problem.

Re: NASA Force

#146

Post by porridgeraisin »

OhMeadhbh wrote: post #141
porridgeraisin wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of research happens outside academia-attached labs like JPL and outside MIC firms like lockheed/boeing?

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?

Re: NASA Force

#148

Post by bakies »

esseph wrote: post #134
threetonesun wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The $20 billion dollar moon base didn't seem like an announcement grounded in reality, although maybe that was less a PR stunt than the fact that NASA must (literally) shoot for the moon to stay politically relevant.

> The $20 billion dollar moon base didn't seem like an announcement grounded in reality While I can't comment on the cost per say, there are both military and capitalistic reasons for the race to the moon.

is there?

Re: NASA Force

#150

Post by chasd00 »

hellojesus wrote: post #30

Why is this called Nasa Force when the linked job is for an Areospace Engineer? The usa.jobs site only shows 15 open reqs for Nasa, and they are almost all engineering roles, save a few accounting/finance ones. Does that mean there are legitimately no other jobs open for tech-related folks? What is the point of the fancy landing page (that provides zero actual info) if that's the case? No Data Science or developer op…

> I'd love to work for NASA

i doubt it's that great, NASA is a huge government organization. There may be a handful of people/teams doing cool things but I suspect much of it is infuriating slow and bureaucratic. However, it's probably a good place to retire from if you're willing to put in the 30-40 years.

Post reply on HN