NASA Force (nasaforce.gov)

by LorenDB 312 comments 336 points
Read article View on HN

312 comments

[−] scrumper 27d ago
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 science-focused aerospace engineering, but it's still a government job under all the gold leaf and atomic robots.

EDIT: Good Lord, I get the cynicism but at least someone at NASA HR is trying new things to keep the lights on.

[−] sailfast 27d ago
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 skillset could do these exact jobs. Why re-post under a different skin and expect a different result?

[−] OhMeadhbh 27d ago
Well... the TSA was a jobs program for people who couldn't or didn't want to get jobs as cops. Stennis (Space Flight Center) is a jobs program for Aero Engineering grads to keep them from going to work in Europe or India. Who knows... we might need them to design newer expensive missile systems sometime.

There are all these 30-60 year old engineers who look like they should be good hires on paper, but the tech economy has been pooping out bullshit products (and jobs) for the last 20 years. The last "real" job I had... my official role was to sit at a desk and "coordinate" development. While no one was looking, I wrote code and passed it off to a dev in India to check in (US engineers weren't allowed to check in code.) My job at Amazon was similar... the higher up the food chain you went, the less management understood what engineers did (modulo a few notable exceptions -- the guy who ran Route 53 when it launched was amazingly tech saavy for a VP level manager.)

There's only so much idiocy you can expect the tech industry to digest. It's time to send engineers to the government so they can write documents about how we should evaluate the requirements for evaluation criteria.

[−] DaiPlusPlus 27d ago

> I wrote code and passed it off to a dev in India to check in (US engineers weren't allowed to check in code.)

...usually it's the other way around.

May I ask what the situation was? Reverse-outsourcing by the Indian central government?

[−] jimmydddd 27d ago
Not OP. Sounds like he was considered to be a manager and wasn't allowed to get into the weeds. So instead of just managing the off shore team, he wrote some of the code for them and then let them take credit for it.
[−] gremlinunderway 27d ago
Which also means that he wasn't doing his job (management) and instead micromanaging his staff by doing their job.

This is such a common problem with highly technical managers because they can't seem to understand how to change focus or scope and do their jobs better. Instead they fall back on trying to ship features thinking that this is productive and to pat themselves on the back for staying technical.

[−] OhMeadhbh 21d ago
I was not a manager. I was hired as a software engineer.
[−] OhMeadhbh 21d ago
Yes and No. My job title was "Software Engineer," though my management chain told me my role was "Product Owner." Agile was fine at the beginning when it was a few people who knew what they were doing, but it's become a load of horse-shit.

The issue was that my management chain was concerned that my time was too valuable to be spent writing code. And there's a yes-and-no in this one. I was a reasonably well paid US-based software engineer, so yes, my time was valuable. And yes, some of the non-coding tasks I performed were probably more impactful than writing code. But... code + machine parsable specifications + docs + tests are very good ways of communicating exactly what you want.

I'm just sort of laughing thinking about what my old management chain would think if they knew our India based devs and I were using TLA+ as the core of our specification / documentation. Actually, I doubt they would understand it.

[−] elictronic 27d ago
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.

[−] bigyabai 27d ago
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.

[−] parineum 26d ago
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.

[−] bigyabai 26d ago
It's funny to me how quickly people leap in front of the train to pretend like this fixes everything. NASA still has an anemic culture, and opening the door to interns is not a replacement for their failing talent acquisition. Budget cuts, revoked contracts and fired personnel will not stimulate positive change either.

> they weren't a great agency before and were still declining.

"Were"? They are. You're again giving premature credit to a policy that hasn't worked yet and ostensibly throttled NASA's capabilities. This is this administration's problem as much as it was Biden's, Trump 1's, and Obama's. You don't have to come in here with a chip on your shoulder just because I'm blaming the current iteration of the disaster.

[−] parineum 26d ago

> "Were"? They are. You're again giving premature credit to a policy that hasn't worked yet and ostensibly throttled NASA's capabilities.

I didn't assert otherwise. In fact, I clearly stayed that I _hoped_ this move would help. The status quo certainly wasn't working and I could see a way for this move to be helpful.

I'm not saying it's a great idea and it'll for sure work but, I guess, fuck me for trying to be optimistic about a decision made by this administration...

[−] stronglikedan 27d ago
[flagged]
[−] UqWBcuFx6NV4r 27d ago
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?
[−] gbnwl 27d ago
Genuinely sorry he let you down and you're left holding the bag dude. But please understand people aren't going to accept your weak rationalizations anymore.
[−] ImPostingOnHN 27d ago
> they may have trimmed some fat, which is normal and necessary, but it's disingenuous to say that "engineers were vilified"

You can always tell when someone is embarrassed to defend something (especially hurting people), when they have to mask it in ambiguous, impassive terms and stale euphemisms.

He didn't fire thousands of good people, human beings who have to worry about putting food on the table now, for purely ideological reasons, while vilifying them as "woke", unqualified, doing work not worth doing (only to open the same positions back up now, because it turns out it was). No, he just "trimmed the fat".

Oh, did people get hurt? Did we waste money and lose expertise for nothing? No, we just "trimmed the fat". Gotta "trim the fat", right? "Trimming the fat" is normal and necessary, and if I say something is just "trimming the fat", that's all it is.

[−] dboreham 27d ago
The entire DOGE program was an exercise in vilifiaction.
[−] ahhhhnoooo 27d ago
They fired talented engineers and technologists because they were trans.

It's not a meritocracy right now. Good people were fired based on their identity alone.

[−] nebula8804 27d ago
This is the problem. It's as if everything has to crash and burn for people like the person you responded to finally get some sense. By that point, it will be too late to catch up to our competitors overseas. The race will be over. I honestly don't know how to reconcile this seemingly unsolvable problem. They have no perspective whatsoever of the kinds of people that are real innovators in engineering & tech. This field is super open to alternative lifestyles because that's where a lot of out of the box thinking happens. They just don't get it. In the past, it seemed easy to just ignore them. They could live their lives. But now they're running the ship and its sinking.
[−] thegrim33 27d ago

>> 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 numbers are you interpreting as some sort of insane budget restriction?

[−] sailfast 27d ago
"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 Technology Fellows, GSA, and other programs that brought folks into industry for roles exactly like this were unceremoniously destroyed in quite cruel and silly ways. Why would I apply for this? Fool me once...

[−] tiberone 27d ago

> 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?

[−] hellojesus 27d ago
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 openings for tech folk that don't have Abet certified engineering degrees?

I'd love to work for Nasa, but I live in Portland, OR. Does this geo basically disqualify me from ever joining Nasa?

And the pay range for the aerospace engineer is okayish, but it's not really out-competiting more senior tech folks in any capacity.

[−] tencentshill 27d ago
Cool website, Big Balls. Where's our social security data?
[−] mmcconnell1618 27d ago
NASA "Force?" It sounds very similar to Space Force and Air Force and adds a militaristic tone to NASA. Maybe that is the intent. I know that NASA and the military are closely linked but the general brand of NASA is a the science-focused civilian side while something like Space Force would be the military side.
[−] johnhess 27d ago
The first sentence isn't even a sentence.
[−] bilekas 27d ago
This really screams and reads like a crypto scam or something, also why would they not use the official NASA logo ?

This is so strange.. I'm still not even clear on what it's for..

[−] daviding 27d ago
My 5090 couldn't handle that starfield at the beginning. I got a 1202 alarm just scrolling down..
[−] ISL 27d ago
Spaceflight requires relentless deliberate progress.

An exploding job-recruitment offer might not attract the kind of folks we want designing a system that absolutely must work after a decade in space.

I've worked with NASA and ESA employees/contractors who've made technical miracles happen in space. I don't think any of them would be drawn to this style of recruitment.

[−] parsimo2010 27d ago
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 rule of "to hire someone you must have an open billet to put them in." So what is the NASA Force and what is different? It takes weeks to months to finalize the paperwork and make someone a federal employee. So we're making the application window open for a limited time for what reason?

The website is cool but I'm not really sure what the program is. They've already been able to hire eager people willing to take a mediocre salary compared to the rest of the space industry.

[−] robotresearcher 27d ago
"NASAFORCE technologists inside the systems that power American spaceflight, aeronautics, and scientific discovery."

First hire should a verb.

[−] EricRiese 27d ago
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, developing, testing and evaluating, or completing cost analyses; Analyzing, designing, or operating space flight systems, aeronautical flight systems, experimental aircraft/aircraft systems, or structures operating throughout the earth's atmosphere; Developing requirements and integrating aerospace or flight/ground systems (e.g., payloads, hardware/software, scientific instruments, communication equipment, cargo, or any other specialized equipment).

[−] rafram 27d ago
Another barely usable website from the "National Design Studio." I wish they'd take a cue from gov.uk (or even the US Digital Service and 18F, which they gutted) and build clean, functional, and accessible sites... but the crew of web developers who are willing to work for this administration seem way too obsessed with this defense-tech startup landing page aesthetic to care about usability.

The developer of this scroll-smoothing JS library [1] has a lot to answer for.

[1]: https://www.lenis.dev/

[−] maciejzj 27d ago
Is this gig-workification of the space industry?
[−] cdrnsf 27d ago
10.5MB page weight for a landing page? This national design studio is...not great.
[−] xpe 27d ago

> More opportunities will be posted here in the coming months. Click here to sign up for updates to stay informed when new roles open.

Which links to: https://lp.constantcontactpages.com/su/sKWkWfp

Would anyone like to do some citizen journalism and see if the Constant Contact data handling is done above-board. I've done some Claude research -- enough to make me suspicious -- but I Am Not A Lawyer.

[−] yalogin 27d ago
I am confused or misinformed. I thought the administration has severely gutted nasa, did it not? Yet they are doubling down on the brand?
[−] redanddead 27d ago
Did anybody else peep this? https://ndstudio.gov/
[−] dangoodmanUT 27d ago
you can tell this was generated with Gemini, the way it loves to do those "enter on scroll" sentences
[−] xpe 27d ago
These job postings opened today on April 17 and close in four days (on April 21). This is highly compressed and highly unusual.

Being no fan of the current administration and its hangers-on, my brain quickly jumps to less flattering reasons for these short time windows. A four day application window favors people they want to select. They may well have told certain people in advance to be ready. I don't have direct "proof" of this, and I'm open to learning more, but the current administration has beyond exhausted any presumption of fair dealing.

I encourage anyone and everyone interested to apply and report back. NASA has a good mission and its needs people with a moral backbone and intrinsic pro-science drive.

[−] big_toast 27d ago
Why does the application window last four days?

Charitably they're moving fast, but without already having people in mind for the roles or having created the hiring pipeline, how do you reach a sufficiently large audience. Is there an explanation I'm missing? Was this announced a while ago?

Makes it feel like they already know who they want for the roles/preferential selection. On a longer or recurring timescale, seems like a cool way to reach out to potential hires.

[−] insane_dreamer 27d ago
Cheesy, with "join the Army" vibes, but maybe it'll appeal to some dude out there, I guess
[−] phendrenad2 27d ago
Guys, I figured it out. This isn't just a 4-day window for an Aerospace Engineer position, that's just the beta test. They're preparing for calling up a wave of volunteer civilians who want to spend a few months on Mars (and maybe even come back).
[−] kami23 27d ago
I would love to work for NASA so much even at a significant pay cut, but almost everything I've read in the past was they still do drug screenings for a lot of positions I was interested in. Maybe someday they will pull their heads out of the dark ages.
[−] tonymet 27d ago
I envisioned a tactical unit like For All Mankind. I can’t imagine that China would allow the US to colonize the moon. It’s effectively an infinite nuke factory. Any Heinlein fan would recognize that.
[−] justinclift 26d ago
[−] Avicebron 27d ago
Did anyone scroll down far enough to see the "automate air traffic controllers"? I guess technically it's aeronautics but I didn't know that was part of NASA
[−] browningstreet 27d ago
I think the hint of violence was deliberate.
[−] gbbloke 27d ago
I'm currently reading Liu Cixin's The Dark Forest and clickin on this website gave me the chills.
[−] LeCompteSftware 27d ago

>> In-situ resource utilization (ISRU) plant development for a sustainable lunar outpost

The image is clearly Mars.

[−] hexo 27d ago
What is it about? I can't get past this "scrolling" website formats. Makes my brain hurt.
[−] 1970-01-01 27d ago
NASA FORCE: When you want to figure out how your stargate works, but have a limited budget for the research.
[−] gigatexal 27d ago
Why anyone would willingly leave the private sector to work for this administration of charlatans, rapists, drunkards and grifters is beyond me.

Wait till there’s a new administration. Vote for sanity first. Then let government stabilize. Then join. Not now.

[−] Rebelgecko 27d ago
So is this collecting signups for new GS-12s? Or is this program able to offer more competitive compensation?
[−] stickman393 27d ago
NASA should have co-opted "Space Force" from the get-go; funding might not have been such an issue
[−] beej71 27d ago
Wonder what the job security is like.
[−] reassess_blind 27d ago
The initial lightspeed animation lags on my beefy gaming desktop.
[−] krunck 27d ago
Such urgency. They're definitely racing China to the moon.
[−] boywitharupee 27d ago
the timer and urgency of this reminds me of the movie Armageddon where they had limited time to form a crew for a space mission.
[−] blendo 27d ago
Searching for more DOGE-boy wrecking balls?
[−] starkeeper 26d ago
Official Government Age Discrimination
[−] tills13 27d ago
So are they defunding NASA or not?