From: eugene@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers,sci.space
Subject: What's it like at NASA.
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:47:08 GMT
Followup-To: sci.research.careers
Organization: NAS, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA

In article <BrwEnM.FqL@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
england@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (julie england) writes:
>I've noticed that many people who work, or have worked, for NASA have
>been posting.  I've already asked this question directly to someone in
>another post, but I was wondering if those of you who have worked for
>NASA could tell those of us who are interested what it is like to work
>for NASA?

NASA is a mixed blessing.  Probably like working anywhere.  You will find
aspects you will really like as well as dislike.  For me the balance sheet is
slightly in the positives.  I detailed some of these things a few years
back in sci.space when not many NASA Centers were on the net (Ames was the
first for a variety of reasons).

Beats designing thermonuclear warheads or smart weapons.

>What sort of degree are you expected to have to do the
>kinds of things that are assumed (or that you enjoy?)?

The first big salary step is just to have a college degree at all.
This is regardless of whether you are a civil servant or a contractor.
They'd like to have PhD.  The managers like to count the number of PhDs
they have (no joke, I have seen this at every Center).  BUT, you can survive
w/o one (getting much harder, R.T. Jones, the man who thought of the
swept back wing has no college degree at all, but he's brilliant).
The managers mean well for you to finish at least one degree.
Practical or empirical over theoretical.

You will find exceptions (I've not finished a PhD, but getting pressure to
do so, I just funded a student whom just finish UC Berkeley with a
dissertation-of-the-year award).  This also goes with other National labs
like Livermore (LLNL, my ex-officemate retired as a Distinguished Laboratory
Fellow with only a Physics BS) and Los Alamos (LANL), etc.

If you are looking for things on your resume, patents, inventions,
awards and prizes are some what more useful in distinguishing yourself.
Invent something and patent it.

>Do you have to have a Ph.D., and if so, what area is best suited?

The physical sciences are best.  Why?  The Agency is run by physicists.

Limited numbers of other fields like chemists, biologists, MDs, geologists,
etc.  We are having problems with CS PhDs.  More on this later.

>I guess I am asking whether it is necessary to have a Ph.D.  Is an MS or MA
>sufficient?

Oh, these are fine.  Just be smart.

>I know that no one can predict the future demand for
>specialists in any particular area, so I apologize for my general
>questions.  But I've always had a dream since I was a kid of working
>for NASA, or some aspect of the space program.  What's involved in
>doing this kind of work?

Oh, I had that as well.

What is involved is some luck, some timing, certainly some amount of the
right kind of knowledge in the right place.

Place: NASA and its contractors are located in certain areas of the country
from when land was cheap and swampy.  The closer you are the better chance
you have (fewer moving costs).  It's important to understand the role of
each Center and contractor:  See Leech's FAQ in sci.space for a description
of each center's role (I was fortunate to grow up in the Aerospace industry
of Southern CA and also to later move to Silicon Valley).  You will see
a collection of places in the South.  You cannot expect to telecommute.
The better you understand, the better you will do.

NASA is about SOME RISK.  People die the course of working for this Agency.
I don't mean driving to work.  Planes and spacecraft crash, tests fail, etc.
Even some of the computers have risk.

NASA is NOT a "science research" agency.  That is the "ROLE" of the NSF.
Or better DARPA.  We have three RESEARCH Centers, but there is an
emphasis in "Applied Research."  Not basic.  A few theoreticians survive
at NASA, but very few: from theoretical chemist to things like complex
number theory.  NASA is an agency involving flight.
NASA is a mission-oriented agency.  It is best described as a systems
integration institution.  This is a known source of identifiable problems:
when a Mission ends, it ends.  If it gets some research done, all the better.

The NASA pecking order by missions are: Space Shuttle first (man-rated
flight projects) followed by Space Station (also man rated), measured
in the $10G range.  This is now followed by un-manned "Deep Space" projects,
($1G), then Earth orbital programs, then aeronautics and infrastructure
programs (like computers, communication nets, etc.).

NASA is high visibility: this had both advantages and disadvantages.
The rich and famous come by here for no reason other than to
associate: Bush, Quayle 8^), Patrick Stewart, Paul Newman [when I was at JPL],
Prince Charles, Jacques Cousteau (actually the latter uses space
imagery).  These are bothers.  Part of the government.  Lots of empire
building for its own sake.

As a government Agency, NASA is without question, one of the better agencies.
It is a civilian rather than military high tech agency.  It is not a
Cabinet post, but reports directly to the White House.  So it can speak
openly about most things (civil and military contracts excluded).
It is still regarded with high confidence with the public at large.

The right kind of knowledge: if you are a person with the right point
of view (long story) and work your way thru the bureacucracy, you will fit in.
You can have a PhD, be highly brilliant, etc. and you might still not make
it here.  NASA has a peculiar working climate, a specific type of competition.
I have seen PhDs fail to cut it here (many), so the degree is not assurance
of survival.

Disadvantages: salary and cost of living side toward the negatives.

Advantages: some "freedom" typically project dependent.  Always
mission-oriented.

>I apologize for my naivete.

None needed.  This is the Usenet.

This is one of the reasons why I stopped trying to attract people specifically
to NASA.  People will come anyway.

NASA is in some ways far too mission oriented.  For stellar parts of
the Agency, there are many more problem parts.  In particular, our
internal infrastructure has not had the financial support it deserves.
NASA usually engages in "very safe" projects.  Its problems stem from the
early history when it was pieced together from many different other agencies.
The frame work of those agencies has stayed fairly intact (NACA, ARPA, USAF,
etc.)  Another problem is just simply the conservativism engendered by
scientific research (academia) (you tweak the variables in your
field of expertise and your other opinions stay entrenched).

If you are a CS PhD, it's not as simple as one might think.  The agency
climate is just beginning to warm up to computers.  I know.  I was
actively assigned to attract (several dozen people if not more, can possibly
point their jobs to early RAHfRH posts), to watch the Net, to consider
security, etc.  If you can find a nice good slot, more power to you.

Bureaucracy: oh yes is your contractor an Equal Opportunity Employer,
do they discriminate, etc.?  The boiler plate on the procurement system
is unreal.  But that our legacy comes from von Braun ("Ver der missiles
come dun I know nicht vhere" [Tom Lehrer]).

My observations have included 5 years as a contractor (Ball Aerospace Corp
and Caltech at JPL) and 10 years as a silly servant.  I have visited every
NASA Center save one (and I have no intention of visiting that one) including
duty at NASA HQ (the past life).
I was one of the people assigned to a developing computer science program
plan in the late 70s and early 80s. (I also worked at Rockwell on the B-1
in high school as a draftsman and had numerous relatives at Hughes AC as
well I have also worked in parts of the computer industry [summers]).
I have also been given the chance to visit various other National Labs
and Agencies (classified and unclassified) to see how they did things
(+s and -s) (I refuse to hold a clearance, but respect non-disclosure).

Enough?

Oh, I should disclaim that the aforementioned opinions and observations
are mine and not to be taken as an Agency statement or policy.
(Another part of the NASA bureaucracy due to recent net incidents.)
One time X-post to sci.space, followups to s.r.c.

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov
  Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers
  {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
Second Favorite email message: Returned mail: Cannot send message for 3 days
A Ref: Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning, vol. 1, G. Polya
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers