Work ethos at new space companies

[Beittil]

This is a bit of a spin off from the latter posts in the Bigelow topic where workplace reviews of Bigelow/SpaceX/ULA are mentioned. I didn't want to clutter the Bigelow specific topic with this more general view/question/discussion.

So, I have been reading on that website (glassdoor.com) for a while now and I must say it looks really scary what most of these folks have to say about working for these new space companies (Bigelow, SpaceX, etc). Now I know you can't keep everybody happy and that some times people will write negative reviews because they were fired for being a failure without realizing it and stuff like that. But this can't possible be the case in all cases, so when the overall trend seems to be that benefits are crappy, the days abnormally long and the turnover extremely high... how can companies survive like that? Because with a trend like this it seems to be that eventually they will start burning through interns/employees faster than they can find replacements!

So that makes me wonder, would a guy like Bigelow (or Musk for all I care) ever read something like this and stop for a moment to think about what these folks are actually saying?

In the Bigelow reviews for example there are statements about how he (Bigelow himself) is clueless about space or space hardware and that he seems more interested in building models than actual space hardware! Now as CEO I wouldn't expect him to have the actual knowledge of an engineer/designer because his job is to have the vision and actually run the company, but comments like that gotta hurt! If I were CEO of a company like this, I would like my workforce to be a 'tool' with which to fulfill my dream of operating friggin space stations (hell, think about it for a moment, commerial SPACE STATIONS!!!). You will want actual engineers that KNOW what they are doing, give them an opportunity to do it right and make sure you reward/hug them enough for being so awesome.

But now it just sounds like as if the top of the pyramid is filled with some loonies that care more about their own salary and position, not knowing anything about things related to what is going on at all and if the actual engineer comes up with an idea/suggestion... meh thats scary, fire him quickly and lets get an intern that will just shut up and work!

What do you guys think about this, imho alarming, trend?

[Robotbeat]

High turnover of SpaceX is part of the Silicon Valley culture. They do have hardcore workloads fairly often, but their idea is to attract people who are capable of and even enjoy that. It's not for everyone. Virgin Galactic is a lot more laid back, and Blue Origin is in between SpaceX and Virgin Galactic.


As far as Robert Bigelow being not engineering material, I think that is specific to Bigelow Aerospace, not generalizable to other companies.

[Lars-J]

So, I have been reading on that website (glassdoor.com) for a while now and I must say it looks really scary what most of these folks have to say about working for these new space companies (Bigelow, SpaceX, etc). Now I know you can't keep everybody happy and that some times people will write negative reviews because they were fired for being a failure without realizing it and stuff like that. But this can't possible be the case in all cases, so when the overall trend seems to be that benefits are crappy, the days abnormally long and the turnover extremely high... how can companies survive like that? Because with a trend like this it seems to be that eventually they will start burning through interns/employees faster than they can find replacements!

Have you compared with Glassdoor reviews of other space companies, like ULA, Boeing or Lockheed Martin? They don't paint a pretty picture either.

While useful, you have to read them with a grain of salt. The format is biased towards the most negative opinions.

[RedLineTrain]

Just to be clear, SpaceX is rated 3.9 out of 5, which is the same rating as Apple, for one.  SpaceX should have absolutely no problem filling its roster with capable folks, so no, it is not at all alarming.  Quite the opposite.

United Launch Alliance is rated 2.6 out of 5, which is just ahead of Bigelow Aerospace at 2.3 out of 5.

Note re Bigelow:  it has gone through various layoff cycles.  I am sure that this has impacted the score.

[Beittil]

I am aware that review sites often attract only the negative stories from unhappy customers (or ex-employees in this case), though there are also positive stories to find and that is good.

I really get the idea that for a company like SpaceX it is a specific person they need. Like, a single 20/30 something engineer that just loves/lives for working at SpaceX will last a LOT longer in their work environment than for example a father of 2-3 in the same age group since it is just impossible to combine such a workload with a proper family life.

I still wonder how much (in Bigelows example) of it is true regarding that 'chaos' on the workfloor where the techs are simply 'worked to death' and expected to shut up about it while the middle/upper management is supposedly actually clueless and only busy working for their own benefits/brown nose with the boss.

[MechE31]

One big thing that happens inside of SpaceX is that you have to be passionate about your work to stay there. No one that just shows up for a paycheck lasts. It does require a very high work load that can be somewhat unpredictable, and a lot of people complain during the process, they all love the work and will stay until they can't take it.

Different areas also have different requirements. The overall requirement is that you finish the job. Some areas that might mean 40-50hr weeks with a surge. Other areas that might mean 70+hr weeks with slight dips. The test and launch site tend to get beat up pretty bad overall and have much smaller teams to split the load.

One other big factor to consider is employee stock options. They have a long vesting period and can mean very big money. I know several people that were counting their weeks/months/years until full vesting before looking elsewhere. I know one person that quit 1 day after full vesting.

[Lars-J]

Just to be clear, SpaceX is rated 3.9 out of 5, which is the same rating as Apple, for one.  SpaceX should have absolutely no problem filling its roster with capable folks, so no, it is not at all alarming.  Quite the opposite.

United Launch Alliance is rated 2.6 out of 5, which is just ahead of Bigelow Aerospace at 2.3 out of 5.

Note re Bigelow:  it has gone through various layoff cycles.  I am sure that this has impacted the score.

I really get the idea that for a company like SpaceX it is a specific person they need. Like, a single 20/30 something engineer that just loves/lives for working at SpaceX will last a LOT longer in their work environment than for example a father of 2-3 in the same age group since it is just impossible to combine such a workload with a proper family life.

Read the thread again. And the quote above yours, from RedLineTrain. Did you even read it? Because you seem to ignore it. So read it again. Pay attention to the emphasized  text. You seem to have a thesis thought out already, and ignoring posts that challenge your view.

Or will you post similar concern threads about ULA and Apple?

[Beittil]

I will expand my view, I just took the aforementioned companies as example. Though I suppose Apple doesn't fall under the 'new space' umbrella that is the basis for my OP (Then again, neither does ULA... but at least they in the same field).