This isn't a "who is hiring?" thread obviously, but if anyone wants to be a part of our team we are always looking for folks who share our passion for space, especially those who happen to build software too!
Yeah but... to a degree, right? Many amazing things have been accomplished by people not working themselves to death. If the workforce convinces itself that people are expendable then I suppose people are expendable! I however choose to fight this attitude. Frightened, stressed people work hastefully and make mistakes... somehow the worst thing imaginable for a space exploration company, right?
Well, to use our last space race as an example: several engineers who worked on Apollo said during interviews that they strongly suspected the consistently long hours they and many others worked directly contributed to later divorces. (My source is the excellent series Moon Machines, for those curious; I believe it was the Navigation episode.)
Are you really completely oblivious to the working conditions of workers at those times? I think the workers were as passionate about their work as the capitalist was for worker welfare and safety expenses.
Sorry but this comment and some child comments are truly shocking for me in their historical ignorance.
The truly incredible things tend to be created/discovered by the most passionate. This means you'll have selection bias on the people who have a tendency to "work themselves to death" for the cause they're passionate about. It does not mean that you have to work yourself to death to arrive there.
I presume this topic is less about dying for your work, rather about screwing up your relationships, marriage, ending childhood of your kids with divorce and similar.
Reality of an engineering employee even for such a company is, success means bringing tiny increase ineffectiveness, weight reduction etc. into super complex system. No truly world changing discoveries. If you are alone, do whatever you want with your life. But once you go for family, working 70-hour weeks is plain stupid, selfish or just extremely bad deal. No work is worth making decisions that you will regret for the rest of your life.
I agree. I think I'd just add that I really believe that the climate of fear that seems to exist in these super high pressure companies creates the wrong incentives. Would we be okay with a bridge building company being a super high stress environment? I think it's somehow more obvious why this is a bad idea. The problem then is that you're fundamentally making a time-quality tradeoff. If you're okay with this, you're saying you're willing to risk the lives of the people you're sending into space a little more to get ahead in the race. I suppose this will always be true, but where do you wanna be on the curve?
I've had many different kinds of managers. I've had the type that encouraged me to slow down and think carefully about what I'm doing at every step, and I've had the kind that keeps a watchful eye and is always asking "Why isn't this done yet?" Under the latter I started grinding my teeth at night and started engineering things in a fairly brittle way... but my rote productivity was higher than it had ever been. Managerial styles are all engineering decisions just as any other are.
You try to push the world to the next level but only hire in the US?
There must be a lot of stuff that you need which is not really limited by US law and that people could work on from their home countries. Examples just in software engineering: Cloud infrastructure, user interfaces, communication platforms, open source projects that are 90% of where you needed them to be to use them, BSP layers for embedded systems you want to use.
If only it was that simple - in a former job I designed systems for a non-US multinational that did ITAR work and it was incredibly painful to work out the rules for who could or could not see particular items of data.
I understand there could be regulations, but these things not add up for me.
>Applicants must be a United States citizen
>We hold all information confidential and are an equal opportunity employer.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, protects applicants and
employees from discrimination in hiring, promotion, discharge, pay, fringe benefits,
job training, classification, referral, and other aspects of employment, on the basis
of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), or national origin.
It's not the civil rights act, but the immigration reform act that would be relevant here:
"Employers should not ask whether or not a job applicant is a United States citizen before making an offer of employment... the law prohibits employers from hiring only U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents unless required to do so by law, regulation or government contract" 
However, from the job listings, it sounds like that all employees would have access to regulated information, thus exempting them from the prohibition:
"...U.S. citizen, permanent resident alien or otherwise able to review all export-controlled technical information."
Yes. There are legitimate reasons for companies operating in certain sectors to require US citizenship. In fact, non-citizens are not even allowed in the facilities of some companies. Still, the myth persists that citizenship is always a prohibited requirement.
Plenty of debris was created, it was just in a low and decaying orbit so it was mostly gone in a few days. By contrast most of the debris from the Chinese test will still be there in 2030 unless someone goes out and cleans it up.
On the other hand the argument was about China's technical abilities and intercepting something in a higher orbit with a faster closing velocity is harder to do than the US's anti-satellite test. The Chinese proved they could destroy surveillance satellites and the US didn't really show that they could do the same.
How do you do that? Where do you draw the line? Basically every company I've worked for has, at some point and to varying levels, taken government funding. It could be buying off the shelf products in the same manner as every other customer, it could be the company creating a modified product for the government, or it could be taking funding in the form of R&D tax credits.
> It could be buying off the shelf products in the same manner as every other customer
What do you mean?
The only company I've worked for for any length of time that was funded in part by government funds was WNYC, which was a blast!
Public Radio to me is one of those times where the broken clock happens to show the right time of day. Sure, it's government funding, but the content we created was really stellar.
I mean, on some higher political level, there's always the "you use the roads" argument, but I'm talking about having to report to someone in the government about how their funding is being used. That's what I object to.
Nobody has wanted to use cryogenic liquid fueled rockets to kill people since rockets that weren't like that were invented. It takes hours to get one ready to fire which might have been worthwhile for the first ICBMs in the era before satellite surveillance but any modern military would be crazy to use one.
But if you're worried about launching military communication satellites, well, they probably will be at some point.
Probably a bad bet. Blue Origin intends to build an orbital launcher, and they will almost certainly end up launching military satellites, including those which directly aid combat operations. That might be too much across the line for some people.
'cmon its aprivate company, its Bezos, its capitalistic. So at any point in time, if one has to choose between death of some and company survival, you'll hear : "sorry, but this year finacial results are not in line with investors' expectations; we must, although we're not happy with it, broaden our scope to military applications in order to avoid many layoffs"... Standard 20th century business procedure...
I also had that same impression. I mentioned these thoughts in another thread here on HN (regarding SpaceX) and one of the engineers chimed in saying they have many positions across different areas. I still think it would be cool to join something like this, but would prefer to work on some lower level stuff. I'm currently a Full Stack web developer.
Is there a path to from my current position to something more systems related? Has anyone made this transition before?
Maybe in certain countries, but the big picture is that worldwide barrels/per/day consumption is continuing to increase:
Almost all that increase in consumption is attributable to Asia. Any downturn in the curve will be attributable to the economy of China slowing, not renewables taking the place of oil.
I don't disagree that the consumption of renewables is growing rapidly, but that doesn't mean they're making a dent in oil consumption. They may down the road at some point, but right now they're a spit in the ocean.
Because VMware has essentially abandoned their client virtualization software? (Workstation 11 is a paid minor bug fix.) While it's way better than VirtualBox, it's still annoying. Stuff like USB devices will randomly not work. You need more system resources, which heats up the machine, making it hot to the touch. Oh and it crashes at times, too. With Windows-on-Windows setup, I was having daily crashes. VMware doesn't seem to care and offers no support with the product (gotta buy a company support plan). They even had a kb article to the effect of "Known issue: Workstation crashes when you run Office 2007".
It's usable, just a bit annoying. I feel little option but to run Windows as a host OS in order to get best driver/video/battery support, so VMware is essentially mandatory.
Your claims seem inconsistent across the site. On the page you linked to it says "Payment can be made monthly, but a two year contract is required." but then on the CEO page, it says "There are no contracts, overages, fees, or license charges at rsync.net." -- so am I missing something?
Drawing up those insurance contracts is a non-trivial endeavour too. There are specialist space divisions of major insurers who can package up space reinsurance as a nice investment whose returns are uncorrelated with market returns, but they're already in a situation where in years where one launch incident involving a sufficiently expensive satellite payload can wipe out the profits for the whole space insurance industry in a year. They make it back in future years because of the continuing demand for satellite launches. Now imagine there are people on board, the rocket is headed to colonise Mars and the CEO is on board. Not all of that risk to the future of private sector space industry as a whole is insurable.