NASA Force
nasaforce.gov
nasaforce.gov
- 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
...usually it's the other way around.
May I ask what the situation was? Reverse-outsourcing by the Indian central government?
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.
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.
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.
Panic-firing and panic-reemploying your workforce every <4 years is not a sustainable rate of attrition for professional, research-oriented culture.
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.
> 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.
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...
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.
>> 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?
So, probably that squeeze?
So don't be surprised if suddenly half the NASA budget is used to pay for a second ballroom or more missiles to CENTCOM.
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...
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...
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.
24.4 for 2026 is notably less than 26.4. Budget squeeze.
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.
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.)
That's not cynicism, that's... something else.
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?
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?
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.
> the ability to plan long term, which is something I don't think the US is capable of anymore.
> the aggressive selfishness and individualism of American society
> This used to exist, but only within the framework of racial and cultural homogeneity
> It means some dirty words for Americans
> Maybe enough bastards just need to die out.
> How do you make people give a damn?
[1] https://www.nptrust.org/philanthropic-resources/charitable-g...
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.
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...
>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 window only lasts four days. Will you answer the call?
There's some way this is enshittified.
You work on real missions, alongside the teams building them
OK alongside, but not ON, the teams building them? So apparently not actually building them myself? And also, does anyone build missions, or do they perhaps build systems?
For a few days, access is granted to this work.
Access is granted to whom? And to what work, the work I'll supposedly be doing? Hopefully yeah I have access to my own work. Or do you mean the work of the people alongside whom I'll be working on missions (the builders of the missions that is)?
The number is extremely limited.
What number?
The window only lasts four days.
Oh now there's a window analogy too. And they already said "a few days" so one of the two is redundant.
https://awnist.com/slop-cop#technologists%20inside%20the%20s...
Also who are they expecting to get with a hiring window open for 4 days? People susceptible to manufactured urgency I guess... these are the tactics that phishing scams use.
Am I an idiot or does their leading sentence make absolutely no sense?
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.
Here's an almost identical one (design-wise): https://genesis.energy.gov/
And another one: https://techforce.gov/
And another one: https://safedc.gov/
All basically the same one-pager with different vibe-coded graphics and like 500 words of text.
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 there was a public website about the hiring effort, the people actually intended to be hired were almost certainly notified in advance out of band, so there probably wasn't a whole lot of effort put into this.
"NASA Force: Technologists inside the systems that power American spaceflight, aeronautics, and scientific discovery".
We lean so hard into incorporation that we see it grammatically as an entity, rather than as multiple people behind the entity's mask.
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.
Either it's "We're hiring ~1000 IT/Engineering specialists across multiple domains" or it's "Hey, just apply on USAJobs for the open positions".
Otherwise it just feels like throwing an application into the black hole of some kafkaesque talent management system.
Yes. And it always did since the 1950s unless you were interested in relocating.
Ffs aerospace engineering cannot be done remotely, and that too in a city with a nonexistent aerospace industry.
> 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
Not all industries need SWEs who are CRUD monkeys. And your assumption deeply underestimates how most Aerospace and Mechanical Engineers know how to develop at a CS level now as well - most MechE and Aerospace undergrad programs now see their students double major or minor in CompE or CS.
I have no doubt that modern engineering students have CS know-how. It's almost a requirement for the modern world. But I was curious if there were roles for things like simulation, embedded software, etc. or even general scientists that may not fall under traditional engineering. This was mainly conditional on the website's approach to vaguity.
Maybe my idea of NASA was too encompassing. I figured that, apart from the engineering work, general sim would require optimizations and productionalization similar to how we have AI Engineers focused on the practical implementation of ML systems apart from the core model R&D.
I got a bit hooked on Econ for awhile which held my attention through an MS, which is when I learned about computers and then applied that into DS and development.
Most of my simulation experience is in stochastic systems and modern digital twins where agents sometimes have asymmetric information. I can see how I'm of no practical use to NASA now, but it still stings. What a bummer existing and not doing anything cool with life. A warning to youth!
I'd argue your background is extremely valuable, but not easily traversible to NASA at the moment.
If you are deeply interested in the space, working with the newer startups in geospatial/hyperspectral imaging (be it climate or defense usecases) or CV space.
In a lot of cases, NASA is basically just acting as a coordinator between multiple vendors who are doing "the cool stuff" with less bureaucratic minutiae and stress from what's going on in DC.
Lots of interesting players in the ClimateTech and DefenseTech space who would like your background, and indirectly or directly they all work with NASA anyhow.
I wasn't really looking for a change; I have 1 and 3 year olds and am fully remote, and the flexibility with sicknesses is really a benefit. I think it was mostly a shock to my system that I may never do anything "cool" with my life.
For languages: SAS in undergrad econ/Matlab for math classes, STATA primarily in grad school, and I pivoted to R and then python when I hit industry.
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 and MechE subfield now. Most CS programs don't require OS classes anymore let alone embedded programming.
> even general scientists that may not fall under traditional engineering
The job posting on USAJobs is clear. And most people who are serious about working in the space also know how federal hiring works.
> 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.
I think you're about to find out in the next few years how much work it takes to develop a moon base and that dismissing those people as "monkeys" is absurd.
Aerospace can be done remotely. I was working remotely as an aerospace engineer before the pandemic.
Portland has a 1 million sq ft Boeing factory and dozens of other aerospace companies.
is somewhere in that word salad. I think it's an internship?
i doubt it's that great, NASA is a huge government organization. There may be a handful of people/teams doing cool things but I suspect much of it is infuriating slow and bureaucratic. However, it's probably a good place to retire from if you're willing to put in the 30-40 years.
But knowing this administration, "an energy field created by all living things that surrounds, penetrates, and binds the galaxy together."
NASA force technologists inside the systems that power American spaceflight, aeronautics, and scientific discovery.
This is so strange.. I'm still not even clear on what it's for..
Intern project?
So, yeah.
Windows by any chance?
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.
This is a call for developers of the very long tail of logistics related stuff. I'd imagine a moon base would need someone to write the software for schedulers, dashboards, etc. and engineer the parts that interface with and provide non-critical telemetry to those systems. I'm not saying that stuff isn't hard, but it's not anything life or death.
Some of those roles might not even be technical at all and be more about coordinating the human side of those efforts.
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.
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.
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.
Given how difficult it can be to fire government employees, I think that's a good strategy.
First hire should a verb.
> 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).
I have the specific Computer Science/Engineering degree they spell out in length in one question (30 credit hours CS, 16 credit hours math/calculus/stats) so I feel like that gives me a chance on top of the narrow window.
Glad I skipped ahead on the optional essay section. YOLO.
The developer of this scroll-smoothing JS library [1] has a lot to answer for.
Ah yes, that 'waste of times' having to learn things in aeronautics and physics..
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.
https://www.planetary.org/articles/nasa-2026-budget-proposal...
Casey Dreier and the Planetary Society drove the halt to last year's proposed NASA science gutting insanity. Please help them do it again. There are things us normies can do about this 2026 proposed inefficiency.
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.
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.
They specify early to mid career. Imo they're anticipating a ton of applications and bounding it makes reviewing them tractable.
That on top of Direct Hire Authority.
I can see NASA Force[1] is part of the US Tech Force[2] push and has been talked about for the last several months.
[1]:https://www.meritalk.com/articles/nasa-opm-kick-off-drive-fo...
[2]:https://meritalk.com/articles/opm-launches-us-tech-force-to-...
the space part gets the most attention
One of my customers right now is frustrated because they have the tower closed at weird hours at their principle base of operations and they can't depart flights conveniently because of staffing shortages. Clearances are a bitch too... the whole thing is kind of wild and it's kind of a safety hazard when this airport goes uncontrolled. Anything that would help out - even cameras that would let the tower controllers at the primary airport see WTF is happening at the satellite field would be helpful...
Maybe they could try a pilot program somewhere like LGA?
AI tooling to provide traffic advisories when there are critical staffing shortages would be a godsend in some parts, and they don't necessarily need to even remotely be close to provide some help.
Obviously, that's not going to work at Teterhole or LGA, but the air traffic system is more than just the east coast. There's tons of staffing shortages across the whole country.
My first thought is, "we should hire more controllers and pay them better" - but if we're not going to do that or if we can't recruit and train fast enough (we can't really), some automation would be good.
You know how (scheduled, ie you buy tickets to SF, no prior relation to the crew, money for a service) aviation is incredibly safe? Well, one way you can continue increasing safety when you've already fixed all the things which keep going wrong enough that they happened and you corrected for them, is collect incidents where things didn't go wrong.
But obviously no pilot is going to just say "I nearly killed everybody" in public 'cos that's career ending, so ASRS collects these reports anonymously and in fact promises you immunity for certain things if you reported them first. So they can see e.g. sure nobody ever died on a plane because a pilot pushed the "kill everybody" button on the new Boeing cost-optimised "It's probably fine" B123-Extra but here are six reports from pilots who pushed "kill everybody" but were able to push "Whoops, no don't do that" in the six seconds left to prevent it. So this means no the FAA should not approve Boeing's request to remove the "unnecessary" Whoops button from future models and actually maybe the FAA OK for the "kill everybody" button should be revisited 'cos it doesn't say anything about pilots pressing it easily by accident in Boeing's request...
If you looked at https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/ and thought, wow this webpage must 25 years old, you would be incorrect! In 2000, they had a very 1990s website with the option for a flash version and non-flash version: https://web.archive.org/web/20000407212204/http://asrs.arc.n...
The early versions of this design arrived in 2008, though it has a sweet sweet flash header complete with audio until 2021.
An even more irrelevant side note: it appears that archive.org has a javascript based flash emulator built in to run old flash websites, which is pretty amazing.
The image is clearly Mars.
Wait till there’s a new administration. Vote for sanity first. Then let government stabilize. Then join. Not now.
Also, it really, really doesn't help that they're attempting to riff off of the "Space Force" BS.
FWIW, the NRO https://www.nro.gov/ has been the actual "space force" for over half a century.
But can we really rule out it being part of such a strategy?
What? This sounds like a phishing email from before phishing emails got good.
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 this comment (and I get it)" I mean: from an individual point of view, I fully grant that many people would be better off seeking work elsewhere.
3. My experience and scientific research shows that people are not merely selfish actors. While individual incentives matter a lot, perhaps even predominantly, it isn't accurate to claim that we can fully explain human behavior with exclusively narrow individualist framings.
4. Many of us act selfishly much of the time, and this is indeed reasonable and even beneficial at times. But taken to an extreme it can be worse overall, even for those individuals. See: game theory, social connections, morality, and so on.
5. When I write "Let's find ways to support good people who step up" I do mean concrete things such as "let's crowdfund ethical people's legal fees" to survive the Trump administration.
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.
From wikipedia. The white house is pushing for major cuts to Nasa
Claude:
The National Design Studio (NDS) is a new White House agency that Trump created by executive order on August 21, 2025, as part of an initiative called "America by Design." It lives inside the White House Office of the Executive Office of the President.
The setup
The executive order established the NDS along with a new position: Chief Design Officer of the United States
Trump appointed Joe Gebbia (Airbnb co-founder) as the first Chief Design Officer
Gebbia previously worked at DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) alongside Elon Musk on modernizing federal retirement paperwork
The stated goal: overhaul roughly 26,000 federal websites and physical government interfaces to be "both usable and beautiful" — Gebbia has compared the target experience to "the Apple Store"
Initial results are required by July 4, 2026 (the US 250th anniversary), and the temporary organization within NDS is scheduled to sunset after three years
Wow, gee wiz. I can’t wait to synergize in real time for action oriented solutions.
/s
This website feels like an HR person asked Claude to make a website. If you’re swayed by a simple website, you’re not high caliber talent.
I love that NASA is hiring, I worry this is because NASA doesn't have funding.
That said if this bothers you I highly recommend not looking up how many Space Shuttle missions are classified.