upvote
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?

reply
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.

reply
> 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?

reply
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.
reply
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.

reply
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.

reply
[flagged]
reply
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?
reply
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.
reply
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.

reply
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.
reply
The entire DOGE program was an exercise in vilifiaction.
reply
> 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.

reply
>> 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?

reply
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...

reply
Congress passes the budget since they have the power of the purse. Presidents have requested all sorts of nonsense to appease the base.
reply
This same president wanted a Mars landing by 2028.
reply
It has been 30 years since Congress last passed a budget.
reply
That is true, but in all fairness, every politician has at one time, or another requested all sorts of nonsense to appease the base, not just presidents hence the term "political lobbying". If you look up the definition of 'politics," it's the method or strategy: sometimes used to describe the tactics, schemes, or "art" used to gain influence, sometimes carrying a negative connotation of manipulation or intrigue. Everybody has done it since the beginning of time :|
reply
24.4 in 2026 is less than 19.2 in 2016. I wouldn't call it a giant squeeze or anything though, but these raw numbers almost imply the opposite kind of misunderstanding.
reply
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?

reply
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.
reply
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.
reply
Are these numbers adjusted for inflation? $19.2B in 20216 dollars would be $26.4B in 2026 dollars.
reply
Accounting for inflation the 2026 budget is 2 Billion less than the 2016 budget.
reply
deleted
reply
You’re kinda implying that there’s a few people standing around in a shed, and that really don’t cost too much.
reply
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.

reply
Still no idea what 'NASA Force' is but they do have a slick looking website.
reply
Isn't most of the actual aerospace R&D work contracted out?
reply
No
reply
What kind of research happens outside academia-attached labs like JPL and outside MIC firms like lockheed/boeing?
reply
Ingenuity (Mars helicopter) had researchers at Ames and Langley Research Centers, for example. Super cool IMHO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingenuity_(helicopter)

reply
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.

reply
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?
reply
Each NASA center maintains in-house engineers and scientists, if for no other reason than to oversee and critique contracted work.

But in reality they do significant amounts of directed research using "burden" funded research for their on internal needs, and grant work for NASA and other agencies (like DOE).

I worked at JPL, and worked with folks at Ames for various reasons. Both centers try to carve out enough internal time to research new mission concepts, new ways of accomplishing existing mission concepts, or new basic technologies that have dual use for missions/commercial appliations. All of this would qualify as basic research similar to what would happen at Caltech or Stanford, the nearby official/unofficial partners.

I attended all kinds of conferences and agency-level meetings with researchers from many other agencies / nasa centers as well, all mostly aimed at finding out how to better explore space (new missions), or improve our existing exploration capabilities, either with new or by adapting existing tech.

NASA has an entire reporting pipeline called "New Technology Reports" that makes all of this research immediately public, and a deep tradition of spinning off commercial businesses to carry it forward if it turns out to be a good idea.

reply
deleted
reply
[flagged]
reply
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.
reply
I don't think Jared Isaacman is interested in PR stunts. He actually seems to care about the science and exploration parts of NASA. Actually, he seems to care about all of NASA.
reply
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.
reply
> 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.

reply
is there?
reply
- Deep space surveillance

- Logistics Hub

- "Get there quickly and set legal precedent"

- Resource extraction (helium-3, gold, platinum, etc)

- If moon dust can be converted to oxygen reliably, the first company or country to set up shop on the moon can sell that service to countries and commercial entities.

- Unique manufacturing and science activities because of the low gravity

- "Space Tourism"

reply
Isaacman definitely did not pass up his golden opportunity on Pesach to light the most epic menorah the world has ever seen!
reply
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.

reply
There are users or bots that post political headlines on here with an obvious one-sided bias and do it to farm points, similar to Reddit. It'd be nice to have an impartial forum but it always seems to devolve into an echo chamber.
reply
> There are users or bots that post political headlines on here with an obvious one-sided bias

So, humans that are extremely upset with the current state of things.

> and do it to farm points

I'm sure some do, but have you seen how many people across the US have been having protests? People are pissed.

I'm pretty sure your analysis of the motivations would not at all be accurate with such a blanket statement.

reply
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.

reply
> 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.

reply
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."
reply
And from my side of politics it seems like every thread about that group has a handful of dick riders who will stand for zero criticism of their cult leaders.
reply
It would be remarkable if random flailing didn't result in at least one good outcome, and sure enough Trump seems to have unblocked Federal action to eliminate pennies, which is one of those "obviously a good idea but..." things you would never get by ordinary Presidents.

However "Finally deleting the worthless penny" is not a big achievement and so it's understandable that you mistook "Trump constantly does incredibly bad things nobody likes" for them disapproving universally of all US Federal government activity.

reply
It's intriguing because little tech as well as big supported the current admin, and installed J.D. Vance to make good on Thiel's $15 million to his campaign.
reply
Not true; I'm a huge fan of USAID
reply
It’s not reflexive criticism. Why would anyone work for sn organization where the CEO continuously criticizes its workers and treats them badly. Would you work for Twitter?

I don’t know enough about the current NASA administration so it isn’t a criticism toward them. But it roles up to the top.

Just like if I were in the medical field - why would I work for the CDC now?

reply
Suspicion, doubt and negativity is the default for this administration not the exception, for legitimate reasons.

It's always hard to get tell with you people whether your attempt at trolling is based on willful ignorance, maliciousness or immaturity. Probably all three.

reply
You can certainly like it, it's just hard justifying your stance when things go sideways (eg. DOGE and the leaked Social Security data).
reply
It’s not that you’re willfully ignorant of the critique, you already know what it is. It’s TDS. Case closed.

Pre-sorting all criticism as reflexive and not necessarily justified is a rationalization for you not trying to understand other perspectives.

Edit: it seems like my message was ambiguous. Fuck Donald Trump, I’ve got a bottle to pop when he dies and I’ll never let you fuckers live down what you’ve done.

reply
Well said, although there are legitimate critiques of the admin to be had even from the well-adjusted, especially recently.
reply
"TDS" is not a thing. It's a made-up term that people accuse others of, because they can't cover up a felonious president's many failings, lies, graft, and corruption. You use it to try to discredit a person who is rightly criticizing criminality, but you only discredit yourself when you use "TDS".
reply
I, the person you replied to, was mocking the concept of TDS. I apologize if my intent was unclear to you, I’ll try harder in the future.
reply
Hysterical nonsense like this just lends credence to TDS
reply
>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 and look for greener pastures. Sure, the pay may not be the best but at least you aren't working for Nazis and pedophiles who believe in space demons and miasma theory.

(oops I did a cynicism.)

reply
> (oops I did a cynicism.)

That's not cynicism, that's... something else.

reply