[scrumper]

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]

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]

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]

> 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]

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]

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]

I was not a manager. I was hired as a software engineer.

[OhMeadhbh]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

> "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...

[thegrim33]

>> 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?

[aaronharnly]

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...

[casefields]

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

[jrussino]

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...

[SilentM68]

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 :|

[throwup238]

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.

[edgyquant]

Congress has granted the president a lot of power to conduct wars on its own

[kevin_thibedeau]

This same president wanted a Mars landing by 2028.

[WaltPurvis]

It has been 30 years since Congress last passed a budget.

[edgyquant]

Congress passes a budget every year, what are you talking about?

[BirAdam]

It’s a technical distinction. The last true “budget” was FY1997. Otherwise, CRs are used until some kind appropriations bill can be passed. The problem is, that appropriations bill isn’t a true budget as money was already spent via CR.

[zamadatix]

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.

[SiempreViernes]

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?

[elictronic]

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.

[chaboud]

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.

[SiempreViernes]

Technically true, but the president also selects the administrator of NASA, and this presidency isn't terribly fussed about following laws about how allocated money can be used.

So don't be surprised if suddenly half the NASA budget is used to pay for a second ballroom or more missiles to CENTCOM.

[hatsix]

Yes, but this President has decided that he can move money around or just not spend the money, regardless of the budget, and this Congress has let him.

[idiotsecant]

Yes, as we know this Congress is famous for doing its own independent thinking and not rubber stamping everything that arrives with a little bit of mango colored makeup on it.

[nine_k]

Are these numbers adjusted for inflation? $19.2B in 20216 dollars would be $26.4B in 2026 dollars.

[dkural]

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.

[parineum]

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.

[VanTheBrand]

Accounting for inflation the 2026 budget is 2 Billion less than the 2016 budget.

[adalacelove]

That's like 4 times the ESA budget, and still insignificant compared to the money poured into AI. Several companies could cover that budget with quarterly profits.

[gloosx]

The part that the dollars are worth about 35% less now compared to 2016?

[andrewstuart]

You’re kinda implying that there’s a few people standing around in a shed, and that really don’t cost too much.

[rtaylorgarlock]

REQUEST: coupon for positive thinking; STATUS: DENIED, NON-NEW USER NEW BETTER HAHAHA

std::process::exit(sarcasm)

seriously though, this is HN. I'm done complaining about it. I'd like to encourage different behavior, yet my experience has taught me the opposite: Be open to offering feedback in the case feedback is requested or required. In any other case, disengage.

[weare138]

Still no idea what 'NASA Force' is but they do have a slick looking website.

[chrisweekly]

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.

[echelon]

> 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.

[porridgeraisin]

Isn't most of the actual aerospace R&D work contracted out?

[jvanderbot]

No

[porridgeraisin]

What kind of research happens outside academia-attached labs like JPL and outside MIC firms like lockheed/boeing?

[OhMeadhbh]

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.

[porridgeraisin]

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?

[jvanderbot]

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.

[robotresearcher]

Ingenuity (Mars helicopter) had researchers at Ames and Langley Research Centers, for example. Super cool IMHO.

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

[krapp]

>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.)

[kQq9oHeAz6wLLS]

> (oops I did a cynicism.)

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

[ninjagoo]

> 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 to media biased by right-wing billionaire/corporatist capture.

Any suggestions for a long-term fix for this problem?

[krapp]

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 cultural homogeneity. We need that but without the Christian nationalism and white supremacy. That means Americans will have to believe in society and government and each other, rather than only their own immediate interests. It means some dirty words for Americans, a bit more "socialism" and "multiculturalism", maybe "regulations" and "taxes."

We need strong science and civics curriculum in our schools, which means we need to fund schools, which means we need to stop seeing schools as dens of atheist communist mind control, which will be a problem for a lot of the country. We need to establish separation of church and state as an explicit Constitutional principle. We need to remove tax exempt status for religious institutions. We need to repeal the Electoral College so that conservative Christian votes don't count more than everyone else. I don't think that keeping slave states in the union is still a problem worth worrying about.

But I don't know. How do you make people give a damn? How do you convince people that an objective reality exists? How do you convince people that empathy isn't a sin? Maybe it's just a generational thing. Maybe enough bastards just need to die out.

[ninjagoo]

  > 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

[hdndjsbbs]

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.

[ninjagoo]

> 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?