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

251–260 of 343 posts

Re: NASA Force

#251

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

casefields wrote: post #224
aaronharnly wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2027 White House proposed budget[1]: $18.8 billion 2026 White House proposed budget[2]: $18.8 billion [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/budget... [2] https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Fiscal... [2] is represented as deltas, explainer here https://spacenews.com/white-house-budget-proposal-would-phas...

Congress passes the budget since they have the power of the purse. Presidents have requested all sorts of nonsense to appease the base.

This same president wanted a Mars landing by 2028.

Re: NASA Force

#253

Post by steele »

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".

When you're a celebrity, they just let you do it.

Re: NASA Force

#254

Post by arikrahman »

esseph wrote: post #226
arikrahman wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your statement that it's humans and dismissing botted activity is a blanket statement, whereas I never used absolute language. If it's a human getting up and rushing to to write about promoted ragebait content devolving a forum into an echo chamber, of course someone takes the bait and lists grievances in hysterical language unsolicited. Such emotionality is totally uncalled for on a tech forum, and proves my point.

> Such emotionality is totally uncalled for on a tech forum Only when the robots fully take over. It's one of many things that separate us from the machines. Dismissing emotions is dismissing humanity.

Maybe I can ask ChatGPT to reply to this concern trolling because apparently I can dismiss humanity very easily that way. "hey grok give tip this person over the edge on this AI-induced psychosis screed."

Re: NASA Force

#255

Post by chaboud »

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.

The executive has the veto and a willingness to leave the government non-functional (funny how anti-government types are often okay with kneecapping government). They're not powerless.

Re: NASA Force

#256

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

kokanee wrote: post #55
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?

This website is vibe coded

No cross site scripts so they have that going for them. Better then 99% of the web already.

Re: NASA Force

#257

Post by UqWBcuFx6NV4r »

stronglikedan wrote: post #177
sailfast wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They had these kinds of programs for a long time, but many of the engineers were vilified and the programs disbanded as soon as this administration took office. I'm not sure why someone would sign up to work for a government that has no respect for its employees (or a company for that matter) if they already have gainful employment. In fact, a bunch of NASA labs were recently closed where folks with this exact skills…

[flagged]

That’s not what it was, and you have to have been exclusivity ingesting only the most biased media to believe that it was ‘fat-trimming’. It was muscle-trimming. Then again, why would I expect anyone working in tech to understand how an organisation is meant to function. Maybe the government should’ve just had another funding round instead?

Re: NASA Force

#258

Post by EricRiese »

spelunker wrote: post #225
EricRiese wrote: post #160

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, d…

They want my college transcript? From the early 00's? I would like to think I've grown a bit professionally since then.

It's the government. They care more about creating objective standards so they can't be sued for bias than they do about hiring the best people.

Re: NASA Force

#259

Post by rdiddly »

nine_k wrote: post #217
rozab wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't see any big trouble with the quoted text. The language is a bit nerdy, and a bit bureaucratic, but that's exactly what I'd expect from NASA.

It's scattered and disorganized like this administration.

You work on real missions, alongside the teams building them

OK alongside, but not ON, the teams building them? So apparently not actually building them myself? And also, does anyone build missions, or do they perhaps build systems?

For a few days, access is granted to this work.

Access is granted to whom? And to what work, the work I'll supposedly be doing? Hopefully yeah I have access to my own work. Or do you mean the work of the people alongside whom I'll be working on missions (the builders of the missions that is)?

The number is extremely limited.

What number?

The window only lasts four days.

Oh now there's a window analogy too. And they already said "a few days" so one of the two is redundant.

Re: NASA Force

#260

Post by erdaniels »

gcanyon wrote: post #166
erdaniels wrote: post #163

Yet another US Job application where you need to answer "How would you help advance the President's Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role?". Instant pass.

Wait, really? I’m not doubting you, I just didn’t go far enough into the application process to validate one way or the other.

Yeah it was the same thing with tech force or whatever it was. It's on the last page of the application.
Post reply on HN