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

281–290 of 343 posts

Re: NASA Force

#281

Post by dartharva »

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.

Are you serious? Those aren't even coherent sentences!?

Re: NASA Force

#282

Post by blargey »

dragonwriter wrote: post #62
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?

It is a definition; the transition between the logotype and normal text has an implicit [:}, NASAFORCE: technologists inside the systems that power American spaceflight, aeronautics, and scientific discovery. Though its an odd choice that they run it in with the paragraph of normal text rather than making that a heading. Of course, with a four day hiring window its a website that exists as pro forma evidence that the…

Mildly amusing that "◶NASAFORCE technologists" sounds like a natural enough string in context that it becomes a garden path sentence leading away from that interpretation.

Re: NASA Force

#283

Post by jrussino »

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.

That is indeed how it is supposed to work. But things haven't exactly been working like they're supposed to lately.

For FY26, when we had a PBR proposing massive cuts followed by a government shutdown with a long stretch where NASA didn't know what their real budget was going to be, we saw a bunch of layoffs and project cancellations in preparation for a budget that might resemble what the president was requesting. Whether or not that was legal is in question:

https://democrats-science.house.gov/imo/media/doc/SST%20Mino...

Re: NASA Force

#284

Post by throwup238 »

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.

Congress also declares wars, and we know how well that has worked out for everyone.

First year civics: the legislative branch passes the budget, the executive branch is the one that actually spends it. Or doesn’t, in which case you have a constitutional crisis.

Re: NASA Force

#285

Post by sobellian »

SauntSolaire wrote: post #235
alephnerd wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> simulation That's largely a Mechanical Engineering, Applied Math, and Applied Physics subfield now, not computer science. Most CS majors don't even know what an IVP is, let alone PDEs, nonlinear simulation, etc. Most CS programs no longer require numerical methods and analysis classes which are critical for this as well as other adjacent subfields like AI/ML theory. > embedded software That's a computer engineering…

> embedded software > That's a computer engineering and MechE subfield now. Do you mean EE subfield? I don't know many ME's working on embedded software.

Back in my college days, embedded control was required for both ECSE and mech. E.

Re: NASA Force

#286

Post by unfunco »

cheschire wrote: post #169
unfunco wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's called NASA Force to screw with the search results for Space Force, similar to Boris Johnson saying his hobby was building toy buses, in order to try and reduce the relevancy of the Brexit bus.

Why would the president that created space force want to screw with it? Was there some recent bad blood or something else I missed?

I'm saying people at NASA may want to skew the results for Space Force, not Trump.

Re: NASA Force

#287

Post by Thorrez »

Rooster61 wrote: post #52
RIMR wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, I can make sense of it, but it's written like it's describing a picture or something. As a standalone sentence, it is weird.

I can't. It is a subject without a predicate. It doesn't look like valid English to my eyes.

Yes, it's a subject without a predicate. So it's not a complete sentence.

That doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. Let's say there's an image with the caption "A man looking at a fish in a tank." That's similarly a subject without a predicate, but it still makes sense as a photo caption.

Re: NASA Force

#288

Post by altmanaltman »

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.

No, its literally written using ChatGPT

Re: NASA Force

#289

Post by digitaltrees »

partiallypro wrote: post #120
digitaltrees wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not even remotely true and is a trite dismissal of legitimate criticism. Further, even though this might be an exciting concept, when put in the context of the massive budget cuts to nasa specifically it’s hard to fully celebrate what might be more a PR stunt than a meaningful commitment to science and exploration.

I read enough HN to know what it is -absolutely- true. HN comments, including this thread, often just read like BlueSky screeds half the time the US, US government or Sam Altman/Elon Musk/etc are mentioned. They all deserve criticism, but when that's all a thread turns into when these items come up, well the discussion becomes very hollow and partisan really quickly.

Some times facts have a political bias. Realty doesn’t care that you wish it was different to fit your political ideology.

Re: NASA Force

#290

Post by drstewart »

RIMR wrote: post #45
xpe wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the spirit of this comment (and I get it), but we want the opposite to be true. Let's find ways to support good people who step up. Edits (in case my meaning above is not clear): 1. When I write "but we want the opposite to be true" I mean this: if only Trump-aligned or Trump-tolerant people sign up for these roles, I do not think this is desirable for NASA. 2. When I write "I understand the spirit of th…

Given what we're facing, I am actually skeptical of people who step up to work for the government at this moment in time. There's a lot of nationalist language on this site. Even if your motivations are for science, do we really want to give any assistance to the goals of this administration?

> I am actually skeptical of people who step up to work for the government at this moment in time.

I'm sure this wounds them deeply.

Given what we're facing worldwide, I'd say more people are skeptical of anyone that works in tech at this moment in time.

>There's a lot of nationalist language on this site.

Incredibly the US government isn't anti-US. This may come as a surprise to some in certain online bubbles.

>do we really want to give any assistance to the goals of this administration?

The goals of going to the moon? You're right, it's a giant waste of money when there are problems to be solved on earth. Something many people have been saying for a long time. Glad you're coming around.

Post reply on HN