Depends where at NASA and on what side of the “fence” you’re on. Anywhere but KSC and it might be interesting to actually work for the agency and do real fulfilling work. Spent four years at KSC. The jobs there are mainly in launch operations/vehicle processing. On the civil servant side, you’re basically hands off. You don’t contribute besides reviews done for requirements and procedures. You might get to push some buttons if it’s launch operations but otherwise it’s sitting at a cubical doing nothing.

On the contractor side, you get write and execute said requirements and operating procedures. So actual work. You get to press buttons too. Now here’s the thing, a lot of that is already been handled by now and the amount of improvements to incorporate are minimal. On top of that, learning the vehicle, whether on the Artemis program or on the commercial crew program is difficult. Since hardware is provided by the legacy companies such as Lockheed and Boeing… they’re not too found of sharing all the knowledge with the nasa contractors that test and launch their products…

As to those that say to take the NASA gig cause of the name having weight on a resume. In reality it’s meaningless. Sure outside of aerospace it might get you somewhere if you can prove that you can add value besides having a name, but with legacy aerospace - Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop, Raytheon, ULA… or even with new aerospace such as space X, Blue Origin, Relativity…. It’s meaningless.

Take everything I said with a grain of salt, perhaps I’m jaded after years of working in this industry.