Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Boeing Employees To Man CST-100 Crew Capsule

Posted by timothy on from the lockheed-employees-failed-to-volunteer dept.

The BBC reports that Boeing has a source of human passengers to populate its manned crew transport vehicle, the CST-100: Boeing employees. The CST-100 is Boeing's bid to replace more expensive options, such as the recently retired space shuttle family, for delivering astronauts to space, including to the International Space Station. The lucky employees (interns?) won't have a chance to visit space until the experimental capsule first makes two unmanned trips, lifted by an Atlas V rocket. These first three trips are all slated for 2015.

77 comments

  1. Interns? by damn_registrars · · Score: 2

    I've seen rather intensive internships in my days, but never anything quite that demanding. Working interns for 18+ hours a day is one thing, but locking them into work for a week or more is quite a bit different. Does Boeing pay their interns (although in this case life insurance might be the more important bit)?

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Interns? by adamchou · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are you kidding me? I would jump at the opportunity for an internship that is going to give me time in space!

    2. Re:Interns? by mangu · · Score: 1

      Does Boeing pay their interns (although in this case life insurance might be the more important bit)?

      Since the market price for the trip is $20~35 million they are paid much better than the Boeing CEO. They are getting in one week the value of what's paid to the CEO in a year

    3. Re:Interns? by The+O+Rly+Factor · · Score: 1

      But just think about the valuable real-word integrated collaborative work experience they receive! Surely that should be worth more to these corporate cannon fodder^H^H^Huniversity students than any amount of money or time spent with loved ones, correct?

    4. Re:Interns? by dbc · · Score: 1

      Let's see... who do we have that's expendable? The worst (as in most cynical employer) internship job I ever heard of was a friend who was a food technology major. She got a summer job with a major packaged foods maker. Her summer job: taste test pilot plant product that was coming out of shelf stability testing using various new experimental preservatives. As in: rate on a scale from slightly stale to disgustingly rancid. Not quite life threatening, but certainly lunch threatening.

    5. Re:Interns? by rossdee · · Score: 1

      Roman emperors had slaves that were food tasters too.

    6. Re:Interns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen rather intensive internships in my days, but never anything quite that demanding. Working interns for 18+ hours a day is one thing, but locking them into work for a week or more is quite a bit different. Does Boeing pay their interns (although in this case life insurance might be the more important bit)?

      Nah, they'll just offer the interns mileage reimbursement.

    7. Re:Interns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess these interns are cheaper than trained chimps.

    8. Re:Interns? by John+Bresnahan · · Score: 1
      Yes, but not as hygienic.

      Thank you! I'm here all week!

    9. Re:Interns? by benhattman · · Score: 1

      Does Boeing pay their interns (although in this case life insurance might be the more important bit)?

      Generally speaking, yes Boeing does pay it's interns. Actually, they are paid a fair wage.

  2. n00bs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    SpaceX, Dragon, Elon Musk. Nuff said.

  3. This would be sweet... by Whatsmynickname · · Score: 1

    ...if we got back into space one way or the other. I don't care if the people going up are "officially managed" NASA astronauts or not.

    Question, is the Atlas rocket man rated for space? Why are we developing new LEO rockets when we already have working ones, aside from payload capacity? Just asking...

    1. Re:This would be sweet... by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 3, Informative

      Question, is the Atlas rocket man rated for space?

      Not yet. But three of the four CommercialCrew contractors have chosen the Atlas. (The fourth, obviously, is SpaceX.)

      Why are we developing new LEO rockets when we already have working ones, aside from payload capacity?

      Independent experts in Utah have advised certain learned members of congress that no alternative is viable.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    2. Re:This would be sweet... by Brucelet · · Score: 2

      Post-Constellation, we're not. The current NASA plan is to develop a heavy lift launcher capable of manned missions to unspecified targets such as the moon/mars/asteroids. Atlas is a fine ride to LEO but you need something larger to go farther.

    3. Re:This would be sweet... by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Post-Constellation, we're not. The current NASA plan is to develop a heavy lift launcher capable of manned missions to unspecified targets such as the moon/mars/asteroids.

      Unspecified missions to unspecified targets that will never happen so long as most of NASA's budget is being wasted on a jobs program... sorry, heavy lift launcher.

      Atlas is a fine ride to LEO but you need something larger to go farther.

      That's like saying you need a bigger spacecraft than the shuttle to build a space station because Skylab was launched on a Saturn V. In reality you split the payload into smaller sized chunks and launch them on something far more cost-effective than a NASA boondoggle that will cost billions of dollars every time it flies because it only does so once a year and needs 10,000 people to prepare it for launch. Most of the mass you need to put into orbit for a long-range spacecraft is fuel, which can easily be split across multiple launches.

    4. Re:This would be sweet... by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Most of the mass you need to put into orbit for a long-range spacecraft is fuel, which can easily be split across multiple launches.

      "Easily"? I wouldn't go that far, though I do agree with the general thrust of your comment.

      Also, I wonder why the hell we built a space station if we're not going to use it for EOR.

    5. Re:This would be sweet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope at least some of the folks reading this know that NASA is being force by Congress into the heavy lifter to nowhere. It's derisively called the Senate Launch System for very good reasons, and it's really an outrageous porkified sham. If you care one iota for the future of NASA, make sure your representatives are NOT in favor of it, and instead support the various efforts NASA is struggling to fund in support of medium lift + fuel depots.

    6. Re:This would be sweet... by darthdavid · · Score: 1

      And you're a retard. Certainly the NASA plan is dumb, but done right larger rockets have an inherent efficiency advantage over smaller ones to get the same tonnage into the same orbit. We don't need small rockets, we need larger rockets that are well designed and mass produced allowing us to leverage economies of scale.

      Of course, the best solution would be to ditch chemical rockets altogether. A space elevator, launch loop, or linear accelerator would all be good (though the latter two, not so much for manned missions if that's you only method of launch, the G-Load would be a bit high. Could use them for a 'running start' on a manned mission though and save a bunch of fuel). Project Orion, a NSWR or a Nuclear Lightbulb would also be good, but those all have scaaaaaaaary nuclear elements in them and the first two would, by their very nature, release a certain amount of radiation into the atmosphere so will never happen. A fusion torch would also be good, but we can't even get net gain fusion in a closed reaction yet so that's pretty much a pipe dream for now.

  4. At last by kurt555gs · · Score: 2

    The Atlas V uses Kerosene / LOX for it's 1st stage instead of Liquid Hydrogen. Something we learned in the 60's then forgot with the shuttle. Of course we have to buy them from the Russians.

    --
    * Carthago Delenda Est *
    1. Re:At last by camperdave · · Score: 4, Informative

      We didn't forget it. We chose not to apply it, and go with solids instead. Then ATK, the manufacturer of the solids bought the senator in charge of NASA's budget to make sure that everything post-shuttle had solid rockets. Hence, the ARES fiasco, and why we haven't got a shuttle replacement.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    2. Re:At last by vought · · Score: 1

      I fail to understand your comment about LH2/LOX versus JP7/LOX. What is the point you're trying to make. Then again, you seem to be under the impression that the Russians are making Atlas V now.

      Might want to take advantage of proofing before you hit submit.

    3. Re:At last by kurt555gs · · Score: 1

      The Russians make the Kerosene / LOX rocket engines according to what I read.

      --
      * Carthago Delenda Est *
    4. Re:At last by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      I fail to understand your comment about LH2/LOX versus JP7/LOX. What is the point you're trying to make.

      You can put much more JP7/LOX into a given size tank than you can H2/LOX.

      Enough more that it's easier to make a rocket capable of going to orbit using JP7/LOX than H2/LOX.

      Remember that smaller fuel tanks means lighter fuel tanks means more payload, all things being equal. And they're not so unequal as to give H2 an advantage for a rocket starting on the ground....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:At last by qbwiz · · Score: 1

      But the SRBs have about 5 times the total thrust of the main engines, so the main engines become really helpful only after the SRBs give out. Therefore, they're more like a second stage, and like the second stages of the Saturn V or Atlas V (Centaur) should probably use LOX/LH2 to reduce mass and increase the mass ratio of the first stage.

      --
      Ewige Blumenkraft.
    6. Re:At last by Migraineman · · Score: 3, Informative

      We're certainly buying the RD-180 engines from the Russians. I don't believe Pratt & Whitney is manufacturing them yet, though they have a license to do so.

      Kerosene/RP-1 is much, much easier to handle, and in spite of the lower Isp, presents a more cost effective solution from a system perspective. Optimizing the engine to run on LH2 for maximum Isp imparts an enormous programmatic cost. Would have been more cost effective to use the lower Isp engine. That's a program management failure, because a collection of point-optimized elements rarely results in an optimal system solution.

    7. Re:At last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Russians build the RD-180 engine the Atlas V uses.

    8. Re:At last by tsotha · · Score: 1

      The problem with SRBs is they're dangerous. Once lit there's no way to shut them off until they burn out, so they complicate (or preclude) launch abort systems.

    9. Re:At last by Savantissimo · · Score: 2

      If you're going to use LOX anyway you might as well go to chilled propane at the same temperature as the LOX. Chilled, it has the same density as kerosene, less tendency to gunk up the pipes when hot, better regenerative cooling capacity and better Isp than kerosene. (Ethane is good, too.) For upper stages hydrogen still often makes sense, even with the tank size, the insulation needed and the lack of storability - the better Isp really pays off when you're already at a high speed. The low weight of H2 helps, and the higher velocity exhaust works more efficiently at high spacecraft speeds (that's really just restating what Isp means).

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    10. Re:At last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also they're incredibly heavy which makes logistics much more complicated.

    11. Re:At last by n0ty · · Score: 1

      It was an engineering requirement. The Shuttle is essentially a "Single Stage To Orbit" booster. Kerosene/LOX works well for the first stage of a booster in the lower atmosphere (i.e. Apollo), but it doesn't work well in higher atmosphere or Space. That's why they HAD to use Hydrogen/Oxygen for the Shuttle Main Engines.

    12. Re:At last by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      The Atlas V uses Kerosene / LOX for it's 1st stage instead of Liquid Hydrogen. Something we learned in the 60's then forgot with the shuttle.

      We didn't forget - we just didn't use them. The same way I didn't "forget" to use my hammer to snip a bit of wire when I was fixing my fence this afternoon. Different tools for different uses.

  5. ...privately run space labs and hotels... by Arlet · · Score: 1

    If we ever get space hotels, I guess I can just go there with my flying car instead.

    Seriously, why does every space story need to involve a reference to space hotels ?

    1. Re:...privately run space labs and hotels... by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      If we ever get space hotels, I guess I can just go there with my flying car instead.

      Bigelow already has two 'space hotel' modules in orbit for long-term testing and Falcon/Dragon could fly tourists there for significantly less than the cost of a trip to ISS. You'll almost certainly see a space hotel before you see a commercially-viable flying car.

  6. plenty of volunteers by Paeva · · Score: 1

    I'm sure Boeing, or anyone, could find plenty of volunteers willing to get launched into space... even more so if there's a good chance of making it back alive. A lot of people would (and sometimes do) pay millions for the privilege.

  7. Oblig by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 2

    Saturday morning breakfast cereal, for a change.

    --
    Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  8. hmmm.. by damn_registrars · · Score: 2

    Does Boeing pay their interns (although in this case life insurance might be the more important bit)?

    Since the market price for the trip is $20~35 million they are paid much better than the Boeing CEO. They are getting in one week the value of what's paid to the CEO in a year

    I think you're on to something here!

    Let's send the Boeing CEO in to space, and let him pay back the company the cost of the trip out of his own paycheck! And while we're at it, if we can send one CEO to space, let's send all our CEOs into space!

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:hmmm.. by TheLink · · Score: 1

      I've proposed this here (and to others) before: Start a TV reality show (or mock one) called "Vote Them Off The Planet".

      Multiple categories - live contestants, politicians, celebrities, etc. One way and return. So you could have a mock vote to vote Obama or Bush off the planet- one way or return.

      You could even have it for real where they could choose not to go (or choose to pay for the return trip if they "won" the one-way ;) ).

      --
    2. Re:hmmm.. by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      Let's send the Boeing CEO in to space, and let him pay back the company the cost of the trip out of his own paycheck!

      FYI, the Boeing exec in charge of the CST-100 program has already been to space a few times:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_H._Shaw

  9. t? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The CST-100 is Boeing's bid to replace more expensive options, such as the recently retired space shuttle family, for delivering astronauts to space, including t the International Space Station.

    More high-quality editing. A spell-check just can't be that hard...

  10. you see those drawings? by FudRucker · · Score: 0

    1969 called they want their space capsule back

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:you see those drawings? by codepunk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yep and it is exactly the direction that should be taken. I know if it was my ass on the line I would take a capsule over a over engineered shuttle any day.

      The shuttle was a incredible show of stupidity. Why hoist all of the control surfaces, landing gear, associated control equipment into space just so it can land on a runway.

      --


      Got Code?
    2. Re:you see those drawings? by Brucelet · · Score: 1

      Some pretty smart people designed well-optimised capsule shapes in the 60's. Physics hasn't changed in the half-century since then.

    3. Re:you see those drawings? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      The shuttle was a incredible show of stupidity. Why hoist all of the control surfaces, landing gear, associated control equipment into space just so it can land on a runway.

      That's like asking why you put all the control surfaces and landing gear on an airliner just so it can land on a runway rather than have the passengers parachute out at the end of the flight and crash it into the ground? The shuttle made sense so long as it could fly every couple of weeks as NASA originally claimed; it made no sense when it only few once a year... the fixed costs killed it, not the cost of a single flight.

    4. Re:you see those drawings? by Arlet · · Score: 1

      On an airliner, don't you need the control surfaces to fly, and the landing gear to take off ?

      I'm sure professional astronauts don't mind a parachute landing.

    5. Re:you see those drawings? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      On an airliner, don't you need the control surfaces to fly, and the landing gear to take off ?

      You could just stick it on a rocket booster and launch it on a ballistic trajectory to where you're going. Heck, that way you could remove the wings too.

      The point is that if you really want to get the costs down, you need to fly a lot; and the best way to fly a lot is to build something you just refuel and fly again with minimal maintenance. The shuttle tried to take a big step toward that goal, but it was a dismal failure.

    6. Re:you see those drawings? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      One of the things the shuttle could do that most other spacecraft couldn't is to bring stuff down from space. Apparently the spooks liked this feature...

      If nobody needed this feature, they wouldn't need all the crap you mentioned. Could send stuff to space way cheaper.

      --
    7. Re:you see those drawings? by Arlet · · Score: 1

      I wonder how many times this feature was used. Any idea ?

    8. Re:you see those drawings? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Basically it hasn't been since Challenger. When the Shuttle was in the commercial launch business it was done a couple of times, and it may or may not have been used on some of the classified payload missions (I tend to think not, but it's really not clear what they needed a crew for at all). Then you've got Hubble, which was always supposed to be retrieved at the end of its life.

      Really though down mass is the one really unique and interesting capability of the Space Shuttle, and while it hasn't been used all that much is something that over the long term will be wanted. IMO it WOULD be worthwhile to keep one airframe intact and one of the pads shuttle ready since we're going to keep building SRBs, SSMEs and the new tanks are going to be at least related to the external tanks. Even only flying once a year it would also make the economics of using SSME (very good, but also very expensive engines) on a single use booster a lot more palatable.

    9. Re:you see those drawings? by tsotha · · Score: 1

      More like they wonder why we took a forty year detour down a blind alley.

    10. Re:you see those drawings? by jmauro · · Score: 1

      Because if it didn't have wings then a USAF couldn't use it.

      Yes, that is one of the overwelming reasons the orbiter has wings. The USAF paid for part of it and as a result of the Key West Accords with the Army the USAF could only command things that fly with wings. So as such the #1 priority for the USAF in the design is that it have wings.

      Yes it is silly.

    11. Re:you see those drawings? by AJWM · · Score: 1

      A couple of times.

      Once to retrieve a couple of commercial communications satellites whose boost motors misfired -- they were brought back, refurbed and relaunched.

      Another time to retrieve the (extremely) Long Duration Exposure Facility, a flying testbed to research the effect of space exposure on various materials and objects (including tomato seeds). It stayed up a couple years longer than originally planned when the Challenger disaster pushed the schedule back.

      There may have been others, but that's what comes to mind.

      Of course you don't really need wings to do that either. A large capsule with a heat shield and parachutes would do. (Picture something like the way the LM was housed in the upper stage of the Saturn V (although never intended to return to Earth), or Spectre's fictional spaceship-nabber in the Bond movie You Only Live Twice.

      --
      -- Alastair
    12. Re:you see those drawings? by CtownNighrider · · Score: 1

      This MIT class on the shuttle is very interesting. It appears that if done today the shuttle would have been able to perform much closer to its promises because they could have put diagnostics into the engines and saved themselves from having to take them out after every launch.

  11. uniform by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

    I found the new crew uniform!

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    1. Re:uniform by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      I found the new crew uniform!

      How come I'm the only crew member with a red shirt???

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:uniform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong Trek. That's Captain Picard's uniform. ;)

      This is the dro^H^H shirt you're looking for...
      http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Redshirt

  12. Will This Be by dammy · · Score: 0

    Will this be employees from Boeing USA or from Boeing Tianjin Composites?

  13. No, not interns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Co-Operative Engineers!!!

  14. It's the robots, stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Remember, robots don't sleep. They can test AND do your job. Volunteer for testing today!"

  15. you will have to pay the costs and maybe insurance by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    you will have to pay the costs and maybe your own insurance here is forum to add it to your student loans.

    any ways I have seen places wanting up to 6 month internship full time no pay + maybe have to pay some of your own costs to do the job.

  16. so give a Interns tax hell for the rest of there l by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    so give a Interns tax hell for the rest of there lives as that $20M+ can be seen as income.

  17. Equivalent statements... by DryGrian · · Score: 2
    1986

    Teacher: "And what do YOU want to be when you grow up?"

    Timmy: "I want to be an Astronaut!"

    2011

    Teacher: "And what do YOU want to be when you grow up?"

    Timmy: "I want to work at Boeing!"

    --
    For optimal comment enjoyment, take red pill now.
  18. Company Test Pilots by bkmoore · · Score: 1

    Boeing has many test pilots on staff, and I'm sure that they will be the ones making the first few flights. Normally a civilian company test pilot makes the first flights of any new aircraft design before it is handed over to government / military test pilots for the follow-on phases of flight test and development. NASA was more of an exception than the rule because they had their astronauts make the first flights of previous space capsules / shuttles. But if memory serves me correctly, the first flights of the X-15 were made by company test pilots before NASA pilots flew it.

  19. In this case, redshirts is a better term. by master_p · · Score: 3, Funny

    Sorry, couldn't resist.

  20. Unmanned IS the interns by kmahan · · Score: 2

    The first two unmanned flights will be crewed by interns. The third is the manned one with actual Boeing employees.

    --
    Invalid Checksum. Retrying.
    1. Re:Unmanned IS the interns by couchslug · · Score: 1

      They need human-shaped ballast, and it would be cruel to use an innocent mannequin.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  21. About time by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    This should be ready to service the ISS about the time it is scheduled to be crash landed.

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  22. Sounds familiar... by mmaddox · · Score: 2

    In the not-too-distant future --
    Next Sunday, A.D. --
    There was a guy named Joel,
    Not too different than you or me.
    He worked in a satellite loading bay,
    Just polishing switches to pay his way;
    He did his job well with a cheerful face,
    But his bosses didn't like him
    So they shot him into spaaaaaaaaace......

    --

    What'dya mean there's no BLINK tag!?

  23. American Internships by turgid · · Score: 0

    Why do you Americans fall over yourselves to do unpaid work for greedy corporations when you're young?

    It's the height of craziness, especially considering the cost of your education is so high and if you get sick at any time in your lives you'll probably be bankrupted by medical bills, unless you just rot away slowly in pain.

    --
    Stick Men
    1. Re:American Internships by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      engineering internships almost always pay pretty well

    2. Re:American Internships by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interns at engineering companies actually get compensated quite well. I did my undergraduate degree in aerospace engineering and spent two summers at NASA and one at Boeing. NASA paid me $12/hr and expected me to find my own housing. Boeing paid me $30/hr, paid for my apartment, and paid for the rental car I used while working there.

    3. Re:American Internships by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have never heard of an engineering internship that was unpaid. The summary conjectures that interns would do this task. That is highly unlikely. The fine article doesn't mention interns at all. And what does any of this have to do with education and medical bills?

      Please sell your socialist class warfare somewhere else. We're all stocked up here.

      Regards,
      Jason C. Wells

    4. Re:American Internships by turgid · · Score: 1

      Other people in this thread were speculating the Boeing would be working interns 18 hours a day for free to compete for the chance to be selected to go on the CST.

      I know they were being sarcastic, but I also know that a lot of American companies expect students to work for free for "internships." It's a nasty, exploitative practice that's starting to spread to the UK.

      As for socialism, since when was working for free to let a rich person get richer ever a good idea? I don't understand why the USA insists of protecting a system that lets the super-rich get richer while the workers at the bottom (white- and blue-collar) become increasingly over-worked and poorer.

      That's a problem that can be fixed without Socialism, but the foaming-at-the-mouth types refuse to acknowledge that.

      America could be great it it wanted too, but the political bigots will make sure that doesn't happen.

      Signed, A. Eurocommie.

      --
      Stick Men
  24. Why the shuttle made no sense energetically by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    Your right about fixed costs, but there is more to it than that. Energetically, it makes no sense to lift so much material into orbit and then not leave it there to grow humankind's presence in space. Rockets with maximum to-orbit payload sizes with tiny return capsules make more sense. The shuttle might make sense if energy was 10X -100X cheaper than it was, and it might be someday... And it probably was cheaper relatively when the shuttle was designed.

    But even with cheap energy, the shuttle program also only makes sense if rockets were hard to build, but they are easier to build than shuttles because they are simpler and don't need to withstand re-entry. The shuttle needed so much overhauling every trip anyway it might even have just been cheaper to make a new one anyway, since it often cheaper to make something new than to remake something old with testing. Maybe someday we'll have Star Trek shuttlecraft, but we aren't there yet.

    Laser launch stuff seems interesting...

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  25. Remember, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the Aperture Science Bring Your Daughter to Work Day is the perfect time to have her tested.

  26. Cave Johnson says... by c1t1z3nk41n3 · · Score: 1

    Welcome to the enrichment center. Since making test participation mandatory for all employees, the quality of our test subjects has risen dramatically. Employee retention, however, has not. As a result, you may have heard we're gonna phase out human testing. There's still a few things left to wrap up though - first up, conversion gel. Now, the beancounters told me we literally could not afford to buy $7 worth of moon rocks, much less 70 million. Bought 'em anyway. Ground them up, mixed them into a gel, and guess what: ground-up moon rocks are pure poison.

  27. Re:you will have to pay the costs and maybe insura by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    any ways I have seen places wanting up to 6 month internship full time no pay + maybe have to pay some of your own costs to do the job.

    ... and many of the places that do that are breaking the law. You may want to check your jurisdiction, but if that's the case:

    • 1. Take unpaid internship in jurisdiction that requires all workers be paid.
    • 2. Demand your paycheck.
    • 3. PROFIT!

    Will they fire you? It's not like they can go and replace you with an unpaid intern when you file a complaint with the gov't.