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

321–330 of 343 posts

Re: NASA Force

#321

Post by ratrace »

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote: post #238
krapp wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> (oops I did a cynicism.) That's not cynicism, that's... something else.

[dead]

Re: NASA Force

#322

Post by echelon »

chrisweekly wrote: post #191
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…

Thanks for your positive framing and pushback against (possibly knee-jerk) cynicism. Unrelated tangent: saw HackerSmacker in your profile, plan to try it out, wish it supported iOS.

> Unrelated tangent: saw HackerSmacker in your profile, plan to try it out, wish it supported iOS.

I need this! I once tried building something like this but got busy.

Manually curated lists with the addition of "information hygiene" agents will make the internet wholesome again.

Re: NASA Force

#323

Post by parsimo2010 »

khuey wrote: post #317
parsimo2010 wrote: post #315

The top of the page says "For a few days only" and a little later on it says something like "Early to mid career engineers with terms of 1-2 years" So what is the time limited part? The application window? Also, how is this different from the regular government hiring process? NASA already posts job openings and takes applications for open positions. I'm pretty sure they aren't actually getting around the federal rul…

Both. There's a narrow application window and the positions are also for fixed terms (rather than permanent employment). Not really sure there's any benefit here to the applicant. Perhaps NASA is just trying to capture a bit of the Artemis 2 hype for recruiting.

A term hire is still a federal employee, just with the uncertainty of your term being renewed or extended. I’m not really sure what they are hoping to get out of this- even if they were hiring at the highest step, this is trying to hire an engineer from the space industry with significant experience for 200k. That’s total comp because you don’t get options as a federal employee and the retirement matching for a short term is insignificant.

It really seems like they haven’t done anything to change the value proposition of being a government employee, they just made a cool name and website.

But the _qualified_ people who are willing to work for the government in the space industry would already be familiar with their options. Anyone who wasn’t already willing to work for NASA probably isn’t swayed by the fancy name and website. As soon as they get into the actual paperwork process and talk to someone they’ll realize it’s not that different from having applied through the regular process.

Re: NASA Force

#324

Post by parineum »

bigyabai wrote: post #268
elictronic wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We did nothing and it’s not getting better. Do nothing harder. If you go in expecting you can do nothing and you can’t change the world around you then congrats, you will succeed in all you do.

We had a working system. It was the current administration that slashed NASA's budget and castrated the JPL aerospace employment pipeline. NASA's talent shortage is a self-inflicted wound. Panic-firing and panic-reemploying your workforce every <4 years is not a sustainable rate of attrition for professional, research-oriented culture.

It's funny to me how much this administration gets the blame for everything. NASA would had been widely regarded as schlerotic and archaic before these most recent budget cuts. Filled with beaurocrats who didn't even know what their job was. But, the budget gets cut under Trump and now the rot in the organization is forgotten.

I don't think they should have their budget cut but they weren't a great agency before and were still declining.

A program like this, targeting younger people for short stints sense like a great way to bring in some new blood and ideas. Hopefully they can do something innovative that gets people thinking that investing in NASA is worth it.

Re: NASA Force

#325

Post by parineum »

dkural wrote: post #292
thegrim33 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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.

An 8% budget cut isn't a crisis.

You're just scrambling to be technically correct now that you've been shown the data that their budget hasn't really changed much.

Politicians and pundits lie and exaggerate this stuff all the time. Don't take the bait.

This administration certainly isn't the most pro-science, but they did just complete a spin around the moon, something that will get more kids interested in science than anything NASA has done in the last 40 years.

Re: NASA Force

#326

Post by parineum »

parsimo2010 wrote: post #323
khuey wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both. There's a narrow application window and the positions are also for fixed terms (rather than permanent employment). Not really sure there's any benefit here to the applicant. Perhaps NASA is just trying to capture a bit of the Artemis 2 hype for recruiting.

A term hire is still a federal employee, just with the uncertainty of your term being renewed or extended. I’m not really sure what they are hoping to get out of this- even if they were hiring at the highest step, this is trying to hire an engineer from the space industry with significant experience for 200k. That’s total comp because you don’t get options as a federal employee and the retirement matching for a short…

It seems to me like they are trying to find good people without having to struggle to fire bad ones. They get automatic churn because of the term and can offer the good employees permanent roles.

Given how difficult it can be to fire government employees, I think that's a good strategy.

Re: NASA Force

#327

Post by saltcured »

rrr_oh_man wrote: post #161
ambicapter wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You skipped a word. "NASA Force: Technologists inside the systems that power American spaceflight, aeronautics, and scientific discovery".

NASA force technologists inside the systems that power American spaceflight, aeronautics, and scientific discovery?

Unfortunately, many American English speakers will conjugate verbs in the singular for a collective noun like "NASA", so that doesn't sound quite as perfect as it should.

We lean so hard into incorporation that we see it grammatically as an entity, rather than as multiple people behind the entity's mask.

Re: NASA Force

#328

Post by ninjagoo »

hdndjsbbs wrote: post #303
ninjagoo wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

When you frame it like that it sounds like some kind of vanguard of class-conscious people should try to rebel and establish a, I don't know, dictatorship of the proletariat? Maybe they could give themselves some kind of Russian name to sound cool.

> When you frame it like that it sounds like some kind of vanguard of class-conscious people

Less class-conscious and more reality-conscious - there's always going to be a group that's anti-science/anti-rationality because of religion, views, etc. It's when they get into power and stop the progress of science that it becomes an issue.

> should try to rebel and establish a, I don't know, dictatorship of the proletariat?

No need for anything quite as drastic. And that would be effective only for a duration of time until the pendulum swings the other way. Also, I'm sure from the anti-science folks' perspective it's the pro-science folks that are oppressive when the latter are in government.

There must be some long-term solution to insulate science from the swings of the pendulum, without devolving into chaos or oppression. Maybe the internet hive-mind can brainstorm a solution. We also need a forum where like-minded people can have this discussion without getting downvoted into oblivion. Any options?

Re: NASA Force

#329

Post by kube-system »

givinguflac wrote: post #306
kube-system wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technology and defense technology have been inextricably linked since the wheel and fire were new technologies.

So what? Doesn’t mean I have to be a part of it or support it.

Of course you don't have to, it just seems a bit hypocritical to complain about it over DoD's TCP/IP.

Re: NASA Force

#330

Post by ninjagoo »

krapp wrote: post #312
ninjagoo wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

I don't know what the long term fix is, because that presupposes the ability to plan long term, which is something I don't think the US is capable of anymore. Part of the solution has to be breaking down the aggressive selfishness and individualism of American society and establishing the ideal of a common American cultural identity and civic duty. This used to exist, but only within the framework of racial and cultu…

  > the ability to plan long term, which is something I don't think the US is capable of anymore.
It may seem that way, but this lack is temporary until the pendulum swings back the other way. What is needed some mechanism to keep progress and planning going even when the pendulum is unfavorable.

  > the aggressive selfishness and individualism of American society
It's an error to think the loudest voices are the majority. Also, selfishness and individualism are not necessarily cojoined twins, though it may seem that way at the moment. Americans are generous with their time and money as one can see from donation stats. [1] The comparative data at [2] is especially eye-opening.

  > This used to exist, but only within the framework of racial and cultural homogeneity
This might be a myth. See [2]. Also, cooperative/pro-social behaviors are well documented across a spectrum of biological species, including humans. It might be innate to structured biological life, individual pathologies notwithstanding. "Society" is a thing, after all.

  > It means some dirty words for Americans
I think this is an artifact of media capture. We the people need to wrest back control of the medium.

  > Maybe enough bastards just need to die out.
There's always new ones being minted, unfortunately. Hence the need for a long-term solution.

  > How do you make people give a damn?
Maybe we just need to organize those who do. Any suggestions how?

[1] https://www.nptrust.org/philanthropic-resources/charitable-g...

[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-96009-3

Post reply on HN