jeff findley wrote:
: rk writes:
: So you post it *here*? :-P
:
: Point taken.

: Actually, there is more than one qualified candidate in the sci.space
: newsgroups, but whether or not they'd be willing to actually work for
: NASA is a good question. It's just possible that this would be a
: "dream job" for someone.

: I'd personally love the research, but the writing would be difficult
: for me, because I'm your typical can't spell, can't write very well
: engineer. That quickly puts me in the not qualified category.

I wouldn't be too quick to jump at the job just because you love
space history. As with many government jobs, the word "head" probably
entails a lot of administrative work, such as the joys of budgeting, dealing
with HR problems (who/how should we fire?), ensuring paperwork compliance
with somtimes complex archival and legal regulations etc. etc. Although
a historical background is probably needed, the actual job is probably more
aking to being a university administrator than a historian per se.
In addition, many "official historians" find other notable drawbacks
in their work. They are often told what to study, work on deadlines, etc.
such as "We want a history of the analysis of ball-bearing failure, done in
three weeks". Much of their historical work is not popular 'trade history'
but rather very formal, narrow, specialized work that is more aking to
writing business reports than what most people are used to. i
That is not to slam jobs as "official" historians. They are highly
sought after jobs, many people do love their posts, but as with all job
(government in particular) the title does not always do justice to the actual
job description. Getting a job as a University Professor allows vastly
more freedom in research, etc. but with the move towards 'adjunct' faculty
those jobs are getting harder than ever to find as well......

regards,
--------------------------------------------------------------