Job Opening: "Frequent travel may be required"(usajobs.gov)
usajobs.gov
Job Opening: "Frequent travel may be required"
http://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/302967000
14 comments
>PS: I wish people would stop with the lazy and "funny" comments. It's like wading through crap.
Indeed. I think the submission being a light/fluff piece brings out commenters who otherwise would stay away. That's not a complaint about the submission, however. It's both informative and, on a deep and nerdly level, really cool.
Indeed. I think the submission being a light/fluff piece brings out commenters who otherwise would stay away. That's not a complaint about the submission, however. It's both informative and, on a deep and nerdly level, really cool.
I'd still do it if I qualified for it.
Hence why they don't have to pay astronauts half a million.
Hence why they don't have to pay astronauts half a million.
It depends where you live. In the NASA launch area, it goes a long way.
I find this low too but the job title is "Astronaut Candidate". This probably does not guarantee that you'll actually go to space. If you manage to go through all the training and get on a real space mission, the salary will probably be higher.
Why would they pay more? It's not like you're going to quit after getting selected for flight just because you want a $10K raise.
A lot of astronauts didn't actually fly anywhere. A lot of them have spent decades training and waiting. So it doesn't even guarantee you'll fly anywhere (well except Baikonur or Moscow for training).
They've almost always been on the same GS scale as almost every other federal employee. $141k seems high from what I remember, but the locality adjustment may top out around there.
I don't think there's ever been an astronaut who did it for the paycheck. All of them would probably pay for the opportunity.
in a sense, it is still a competitive salary
"Since all crewmembers will be expected to fly aboard the Soyuz vehicle and perform Extravehicular Activities (space walks), applicants must meet the anthropometric requirements for both the Soyuz vehicle and the extravehicular activity mobility unit (space suit). Applicants brought in for interview will be evaluated to ensure they meet the anthropometric requirements."
...or you will be charged for two seats.
...or you will be charged for two seats.
It kind of pisses me off that the US is having to buy seats on Soyuz launches. Of course I grew up reading Tom Corbett and watched the first moon landing on a 12 inch black and white TV...
>It kind of pisses me off that the US is having to buy seats on Soyuz launches.
it is normal for any high tech endeavor to outsource mundane/janitorial work. Russia and US mastered this non-reuseable type of space flight decades ago. It would not make any sense for NASA to go back and implement the same system now. What would be great is if NASA used the time and money to implement a more advanced and efficient system - Shuttle was a great endeavor and its lessons need to be implemented into the new systems. And by the way, for example, while Russia ferries NASA atrounauts, Russia, or anybody else except NASA, has no ability to [successfully] send an actual Mars probe or create JWST (which impact on science and overall enlightment of the human race would possibly be bigger than even Hubble's one). So stop being pissed off and start writing the code for the mirrors alignment:)
it is normal for any high tech endeavor to outsource mundane/janitorial work. Russia and US mastered this non-reuseable type of space flight decades ago. It would not make any sense for NASA to go back and implement the same system now. What would be great is if NASA used the time and money to implement a more advanced and efficient system - Shuttle was a great endeavor and its lessons need to be implemented into the new systems. And by the way, for example, while Russia ferries NASA atrounauts, Russia, or anybody else except NASA, has no ability to [successfully] send an actual Mars probe or create JWST (which impact on science and overall enlightment of the human race would possibly be bigger than even Hubble's one). So stop being pissed off and start writing the code for the mirrors alignment:)
In my view there is nothing mundane about lifting people safely to orbit.
For lifting cargo you might have a good point.
For lifting cargo you might have a good point.
I think it's fantastic for two reasons. First, it keeps the lights on for the Russian space industry (more players makes for a more interesting field). Second, I believe the next big achievements in space will likely be done by private industry. This sets a bar for the cost to get people into space. Whenever some company can safely match the price of $50mil per person we will start having some real competition.
I've been waiting for this to happen for over 30 years. No one will be happier than I will if/when a real space industry develops. But just like I think it is foolish for the US to outsource its manufacturing industry, it is doubly foolish to outsource our space program.
I'd almost sooner outsource our military... (opps!!!)
(Side note, there's a big difference between space industry and space science research. The needs of physicists/astronomers are different than the needs of engineers, even if there is some overlap. Both need to be supported and encouraged. And both need both private and government funding.)
I'd almost sooner outsource our military... (opps!!!)
(Side note, there's a big difference between space industry and space science research. The needs of physicists/astronomers are different than the needs of engineers, even if there is some overlap. Both need to be supported and encouraged. And both need both private and government funding.)
SpaceX is a few bells and whistles away from a human-rated Crew Configuration of the Dragon spacecraft with seating for seven. Their initial contract for unpiloted cargo flights of Falcon 9 / Dragon to ISS charges an average of $133 million per flight. At the same rate, they could sell passenger seats for only $19 million.
That's just a back of the envelope calculation with a gazillion assumptions, but useful for making projections for the next few years.
That's just a back of the envelope calculation with a gazillion assumptions, but useful for making projections for the next few years.
Apparently seats on US-made launches are more expensive.
Does it bother you buying "Made in China" stuff?
Does it bother you buying "Made in China" stuff?
My problem isn't that the seats are Russian, it's that we've let our space program wither away to nothing. I don't mind competition in space industry, what I mind is that our government, and industry, leaders simply can't be bothered.
> it's that we've let our space program wither away to nothing
Maintaining a space program is a very expensive proposition, and given the enormous amont of debt the government possesses, I'd say it was a wise decision to shut the whole thing down.
Maintaining a space program is a very expensive proposition, and given the enormous amont of debt the government possesses, I'd say it was a wise decision to shut the whole thing down.
Unfortunately, the space program is a trivial amount compared to what's actually consuming the budget: defense and welfare.
Since the risk of this thread devolving into a federal budget debate expands exponentially with every post, I propose leaving the subject for another time and place.
Since the risk of this thread devolving into a federal budget debate expands exponentially with every post, I propose leaving the subject for another time and place.
Non having a working space program will likely be an even more expensive proposition. Theres nothing wrong, in my opinion, with governments being involved in high speculative, but highly valuable infrastructure development.
Competition implies that less efficient providers are losing customers. US government is making wise move by cutting expenses that way.
At $50 million a seat, that starts to add up.
It's incredible how relatively sparse the application itself is. No essays, no short answers, no letters of recommendation. No prose of any kind. Simply a resume, references, an academic transcript, and a small list of "additional skills". The astronaut website talks repeatedly about focusing on candidates with high levels of academic achievement, and I guess they aren't kidding. With this application, for better or worse, that's about all they have to go on in this screening round.
I'm surprised that they will accept a graduation degree in lieu of 1,000+ hours of pilot-in-command time in a jet aircraft. I'm a private pilot of single-engine propeller airplanes and getting my degree in CS is certainly no substitute!
I'm applying tonight.
I'm applying tonight.
I believe it qualifies you for a different job; NASA traditionally splits people into the roles that require a pilot background (Pilot, Mission Commander, etc.), and those that require scientific credentials (Mission Specialist).
They have 2 paths to qualify - piloting astronauts and non-piloting. So it's not a substitute, per se.
That's an interesting throwback to the days when all astronauts were test pilots, but it's kind of stupid nowadays, for reasons Robert Zubrin points out in his Mars Direct plan. It's simply easier to train a qualified engineer or scientist to be a pilot than it is to train a qualified pilot to be an engineer or scientist--and on any mission that's at all interesting, it's silly to waste space on an astronaut who isn't an engineer or a scientist.
I read it that they are looking for jet experience specifically. Doubt that propeller machine experience is a substitute. Good luck though, I hope you make it into the interview round!
Flight up = pro-programmed Soyuz module.
Flying = ISS is in an orbit, very little aerobatic ability
Flight down = Soyuz module pre-programmed to hit target
But NASA will swap a graduate degree in something scientific for having buzzed around pretending to shoot people in a F16/18. Perhaps they could extend this to other parts of their operation? HST staff = extensive peer-reviewed published papers, or experience with a 105mm howitzer.
Flying = ISS is in an orbit, very little aerobatic ability
Flight down = Soyuz module pre-programmed to hit target
But NASA will swap a graduate degree in something scientific for having buzzed around pretending to shoot people in a F16/18. Perhaps they could extend this to other parts of their operation? HST staff = extensive peer-reviewed published papers, or experience with a 105mm howitzer.
"Frequent travel may be required" is not all that strange considering this is for an astronaut...
It is a form of humor on the part of the HN submitter. Though for the life of me I can't recall what type. It's not irony. Gross understatement?
Not even that, since most astronauts don't really travel to space frequently. It would have to be "involves somewhat longish trips" to be a proper understatement.
Since the ad is for astronaut candidates, the frequent travel is presumably of the boring, Earth-bound type.
Since the ad is for astronaut candidates, the frequent travel is presumably of the boring, Earth-bound type.
Wry humor becomes much less funny when you insist on analyzing it and adhering to the so-called "facts"...
You're right, of course. But I only jumped in after you started it. :-)
"Astronaut Candidates will be required to pass a swimming test during the first month of training."
Does the back float count?
Does the back float count?
Does anybody know how competitive something like this is? Do they get thousands or tens of thousands of applicants? I want to set my expectations accordingly.
I have a rejection letter from the last round. IIRC, the letter said the number applicants was either 2k or 20k. Sorry for the huge range, but it was ~4 years ago. I believe they accepted 12 into the program.
Kinda makes me wonder why they don't tighten up the application criteria. Bachelor's degree in something vaguely sciencey plus three years experience? Compare that to the actual CVs of the nine folks they selected (out of 3500) last time:
http://www.nasa.gov/astronauts/ascans2009.html
http://www.nasa.gov/astronauts/ascans2009.html
For some perspective of where I was: bachelors degrees in "Computer Science" and "Engineering Mechanics & Astronautics." And 4 years of aerospace engineering experience. I just barely made it past the official requirements, but I'm pretty sure they wanted someone older/more experienced. I'm also not in amazing shape, but I was Good Enough(tm). Apparently it wasn't enough to warrant an interview. shrug
I'm glad it didn't require 20 years of Java experience.
One of the few jobs I'm too tall for.
Doesn't pay as much as I would have thought.
(But the bennies are out of this world.)
(But the bennies are out of this world.)
Oh darn, I'm too tall. At least I've got a good excuse for cough not being an astronaut cough
Can you hear me Major Tom..
It's probably easier to start a photo-sharing social media network, sell it to Facebook, and use the proceeds to buy a Virgin Galactic ticket, than to get this job.
I wonder if a computer science degree counts as education in a branch of mathematics (which qualifies), or in "technology" (which does not).
"Basic Education Requirement: A bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with major study in engineering, physical science, mathematics, life sciences, computer science, or other field of science."
"The following degree fields are not considered qualifying:
--Degrees in Technology (Engineering Technology, Aviation Technology, Medical Technology, etc.) "
Space Shuttle Endeavour cost about $1.7 billion, each Space Shuttle flight cost $450 million, $480.1 million has been awarded through the COTS program - and they would pay an astronaut $65k/year. I'm guessing they feel that the rare opportunity to be in space is enough pay for you. ;)
I'd still do it if I qualified for it.
PS: I wish people would stop with the lazy and "funny" comments. It's like wading through crap.