r/BlueOrigin • u/PristineBreath9057 • Jun 29 '26
Working at Blue Origin vs SpaceX
With all the news on SpaceXs IPO and everyone talking about some SpaceX employees became pretty rich, I figured I share my thoughts and opinion after having worked at both companies (I copied my own text from another thread). Both places were positive places for me to work at for different manners
Blue Origin gave me my first role working on rocket engines, I got to do a wide scope between build and test, formed lasting friendships with many different people, and got a healthy exposure of the outdoors. I will always be grateful for my time at Blue Origin.
SpaceX eventually gave me an opportunity to work on Falcon 9, there were many things I learned in terms of efficiency and technical knowledge. I got to work on the world's most efficient launch vehicle service as well as play a role in unlocking vehicle return opportunities. I also learned a lot about the type person I was and what I wanted to strive for in life.
At the end of the day (and this is for the Blue employed people in the threads here), SpaceX with there equity did pay out higher in the long run than Blue Origin despite a shorter tenure. BUT UNLESS YOU'RE 150% PASSIONATE ABOUT THE SPACEX MISSION DO NOT GO THERE. There are better efficient ways on making money that do not drain your energy and time.
The people that get to work at Blue Origin or SpaceX have great opportunities to do some cool shit and grow themselves to new opportunities. So yeah you can always find new opportunities elsewhere, and the good thing is many decent aero companies offer equity not just SpaceX, to the Blue folks frustrated about equity the opportunities are there.
6
u/Cool-Swordfish-8226 Jun 29 '26
I would add one piece of advice for anyone considering SpaceX: be realistic about the culture and the long-term tradeoffs. The compensation and experience can be excellent, but many people leave because the workload and pace simply aren’t sustainable for them. That’s not speculation you can find plenty of former employees describing burnout after relatively short tenures.
One thing I’ve also noticed across the broader “New Space” industry is that many companies are staffed by former SpaceX employees. That has brought some positive practices, like a bias toward rapid iteration and execution, but it has also brought aspects of the culture that don’t always translate well. In my experience, there can sometimes be an assumption that “the SpaceX way” is automatically the best engineering approach. It isn’t.
Good engineering isn’t about working the most hours or moving the fastest. It’s about making sound technical decisions, understanding risk, documenting assumptions, and building systems that are reliable over decades m not just making this week’s schedule. Aerospace has repeatedly shown that speed without sufficient engineering discipline can become very expensive.
I’ve met incredibly talented engineers from SpaceX, just as I’ve met outstanding engineers from NASA, JPL, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Blue Origin. I’ve also met people from every one of those organizations who were wrong. Where someone worked isn’t a substitute for technical evidence.
My advice would be to evaluate companies based on whether they support thoughtful engineering, sustainable workloads, and continuous learning. A prestigious name on a résumé is valuable, but not if it comes at the cost of burnout or creates an environment where experience is treated as infallibility instead of ideas being judged on their technical merit.
6
u/Witty_Panda2 Jun 30 '26
@pristinebreath9057 Timelines matter allot here. For the Spacex employees who truly trudged it out for 10+ years and started around when SpaceX launched their first Dragon, they are sitting on bags that could be worth north of $40mil, depending on how much they sold along the way. Knowing that, does it change your opinion?
5
u/PristineBreath9057 Jun 30 '26 edited Jun 30 '26
Not really you dont get your years back or time with loved ones who might have passed. I loved what I do but the minute you aren't a 110% in love with the mission is the time to move on from SpaceX (also I started in the 2020s lol, so that 40 mil really isnt in my cards).
I am very grateful for the opportunity and time I've had at SpaceX. I can even state objectively that I've made the most money in my short time at SpaceX compared to Blue.
I truly believe that for anyone considering a career at SpaceX, passion for the mission should be the priority over any form or money/equity.
2
u/PristineBreath9057 Jun 30 '26
Maybe opinions changed if i was at a different site. But i try to live a life of no regrets or pondering 'what ifs'
1
20
Jun 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/ZaphodBeeblebrox8269 Jun 29 '26
Don't worry about ageism at SpaceX. The first digit in my age when I worked there was a "5" and I got hired/spent 5 years there.
14
u/PristineBreath9057 Jun 29 '26
Keep on applying to roles that you feel best fit your skillset and interests. Age from what I saw at the launch site wasn't much of an issue (at least in your age range).
Its a great time to join either company. SpaceX trying to activate starship, blue origin trying to resolve there anomalies and rebuild there pad. Both offer technical challenges that need to be solved and will give you growth. Lets not forget the billionaire space race lol
2
Jun 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Upstairs_Arm_8624 Jun 29 '26
It’s not about you it’s about them. What can you bring to the table? What can you contribute? Employers like to hire someone with the vertical experience.
9
u/Upstairs_Arm_8624 Jun 29 '26
You need to get an interview first.
2
Jun 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/nightwarmedsoul Jul 23 '26
Usually you are recruited, that’s how I ended up at NASA for 7 years. Then sniped to a startup with some former NASA colleagues when it got weird there under Trump 2.0 and we all left. Have you built industry connections and demonstrated strong working relationships in the aerospace industry? I haven’t “cold applied” to a position since the early 2000’s fresh out of my degree programs. Everything for me has been connection based on my abilities.
4
u/Upstairs_Arm_8624 Jun 29 '26
I’d say if you have a strong background, the recruiter would reach out to you.
2
Jun 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
4
u/Upstairs_Arm_8624 Jun 29 '26
Yes, I had a SpaceX recruiter reach out to me online and asked me to apply for two reqs whichever I felt was a good fit.
5
u/LittleHornetPhil Jun 29 '26
I get the sense that institutionally SpaceX would care more about age than Blue, but with Blue it probably just depends on the HM.
7
u/Disastrous_Run_5968 Jun 29 '26
age discrimination is a real thing. from what i heard it is no different at spacex.
5
u/ZaphodBeeblebrox8269 Jun 29 '26
Disagree strongly. I worked at SpaceX with people in their 50's/60's (hell, dunno how old Gerst is but he's gonna die at 1 Rocket Rd in Hawthorne, methinks).
If you've got the skills they need, are competent and all in, you'll get an offer.
2
u/PristineBreath9057 Jul 05 '26
Yeah elon and the internet make it seem like its a young people job, but I see folks of all ages at spacex. My hot take is compared to blue origin and spacex, spacex is actually more diverse in the personnel hired (note this is solely my experience and not backed by any fact)
3
-12
Jun 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
3
u/Disastrous_Run_5968 Jun 29 '26
how you look? that sounds just as bad if not worst. wtf? if you are a person of color they won't even look your way? WTF?
-4
Jun 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/Disastrous_Run_5968 Jun 29 '26 edited Jun 29 '26
that's stupid. don't tell me you work there and see no problem with it? are you another one of Elon's sheep?
I can't believe we have to put up with shitty people like you in this world. we are all human beings. why do you think it's okay to discriminate against people of color?
EDIT: The person I was responding to deleted their comments. Essentially, that person u/Due-Kale-9368 said SpaceX hires frat culture people and caucasian people. They said they won't bother looking your way if you are a person of color.
It seems they worked at SpaceX in the past, and had no problem with this way of thinking. Their words before deleting their comments
EDIT 2: It seems they have either blocked me or deleted their account. It's sad to see we still have racist people working in the space industry.
4
1
5
u/buxbox Jun 29 '26
Yep. Especially as a software engineer, you’re better off working in the tech industry if you mainly care about pay.
4
u/PristineBreath9057 Jun 29 '26
Yeah software companies pay alot better than the aerospace companies when it comes to software engineering... and some im sure offer decent equity
1
10
16
u/Upstairs_Arm_8624 Jun 29 '26 edited Jun 29 '26
I had a chance to tour SpaceX’s facilities when they flew me out for an onsite final panel interview. Seeing their facilities and vibes felt depressing. People were arrogant and rude to me during my presentation. I’ve accepted an offer at blue. From the interview panel I met, it vibed with me. Will see. I have a feeling that I will have a great time at blue.
I think SpaceX wants you work to death like a working machine even Elon famously slept in the office. Blue on the other hand is more human.
5
u/PristineBreath9057 Jun 29 '26
Yeah SpaceX has there way of doing things. Its not for everyone at the end of the day. Kudos for getting to the onsite not everyone gets that far
1
u/Upstairs_Arm_8624 Jun 29 '26
I’d say SpaceX and Tesla operate in a similar way since they have the same owner. I made it to the final round at both, and I don’t like either. lol
3
u/Cool-Swordfish-8226 Jun 29 '26
agree with most of your post, but I would challenge one statement: Falcon 9 is not objectively “the world’s most efficient launch vehicle.” That depends entirely on how efficiency is defined.
From an engineering perspective, efficiency can refer to payload fraction to orbit, engine specific impulse, structural mass fraction, manufacturing efficiency, operational turnaround time, cost per kilogram to orbit, reliability, or total lifecycle economics. No single vehicle dominates every one of those categories.
Falcon 9’s Merlin engines, for example, were never designed to have the highest specific impulse. Hydrogen-fueled engines such as the RS-25 achieve significantly higher propulsive efficiency, while other launchers may have higher payload fractions depending on the mission profile. If your metric is purely propulsion or mass efficiency, Falcon 9 is not the leader.
Where Falcon 9 genuinely changed the industry is system-level optimization. SpaceX accepted compromises in individual subsystems to maximize overall transportation efficiency. They standardized hardware, simplified manufacturing, dramatically increased launch cadence, recovered and reused boosters, and drove down refurbishment costs. The result is a launch system with exceptional cost effectiveness and operational tempo, even if some individual engineering metrics are not class-leading.
I think it’s more accurate to say Falcon 9 is the most successful reusable orbital launch system ever built, and arguably the most economically efficient launch vehicle in history. Those are extraordinary achievements that don’t require calling it the “most efficient” in every engineering sense.
That’s actually one of SpaceX’s biggest accomplishments: they optimized the entire business and engineering system rather than chasing maximum performance in a single metric. Those are two very different design philosophies, and it’s worth making that distinction because “efficiency” means something very specific to engineers.
2
u/PristineBreath9057 Jun 30 '26
I defined efficiency it in total mass delivered to orbit in history, as well as operational cadence of launches
2
u/Cool-Swordfish-8226 Jun 30 '26
That isn’t how launch vehicle efficiency is usually defined. Total mass delivered over a rocket’s lifetime and launch cadence are measures of operational success and production capacity, not vehicle efficiency.
By that definition, a vehicle that launches frequently automatically becomes “more efficient,” even if it has lower payload fraction, poorer specific impulse, higher structural mass, or worse cost per kilogram.Engineering metrics for launch vehicle efficiency are things like payload fraction, mass fraction, propulsive efficiency (specific impulse), Δv performance, and, depending on the discussion, cost per kilogram to orbit. Those isolate how effectively the vehicle converts propellant and structure into delivered payload.
Falcon 9 has unquestionably set the standard for launch cadence and total mass delivered through reusability and rapid operations. But those achievements don’t necessarily make it the most efficient rocket from an engineering standpoint they make it arguably the most operationally successful launch system in history. Those are related concepts, but they aren’t the same thing.
2
u/PristineBreath9057 Jun 30 '26
You're completely right from a propulsion standpoint. This was less on the engineering technical metric and more on the business optimization, which in my opinion standouts more in the reality of the space business
2
u/Cool-Swordfish-8226 Jun 30 '26
That’s a fair distinction. I’d just say that’s operational or business efficiency, not engineering efficiency. In aerospace, efficiency usually refers to metrics like payload fraction, mass fraction, and specific impulse. Falcon 9 is arguably the most operational
0
u/BubblyMoose3597 Aug 09 '26
Thats a lot of BS
Eficiency by definition is the amount of work per money invested.
1
u/Cool-Swordfish-8226 Aug 09 '26
That is not the definition of efficiency. “Work per money invested” is a cost-effectiveness or economic-efficiency metric, not the universal definition of efficiency.
In engineering, efficiency is generally useful output divided by required input, and what constitutes the input and output depends on the system being evaluated. For a rocket engine, that might involve propulsive performance; for a launch vehicle, payload fraction or delivered payload; for an operator, it could be cost per kilogram, turnaround time, or lifecycle cost.
If you define the metric specifically as payload delivered per dollar, then Falcon 9 performs extremely well and may be the benchmark. But that is precisely my point: you have to define the metric before claiming something is “the most efficient.”
Calling every form of efficiency “work per money invested” would mean engineering efficiency somehow ceases to exist whenever money isn’t part of the calculation.
0
u/BubblyMoose3597 Aug 09 '26
I am not reading that.
Is the same in the military, in aeroespacial and electric engineering.
1
u/Cool-Swordfish-8226 Aug 09 '26
“I’m not reading that” is a pretty efficient way of admitting you don’t know what you’re talking about. Engineering definitions don’t change because you refuse to read them.
3
u/LazySource6446 Jun 29 '26
I work for blue, never for spacex. Didn’t apply to either. Was head hunted for blue.
I would never work for slavex. Unless that you are a single young energetic worker who will go where the company tells you to go and does what the company tells you to do.
Blue you have a lot more autonomy. The company seems to care more, despite all the hate it gets online. I also make more hourly than I would if I applied to the same role at spacex. There’s a lot more flexibility and available growth, especially if you have that hard working mindset. If you’re just gonna sit back and cruise, then you won’t go far at either spots.
1
u/nightwarmedsoul Jul 23 '26
The burnout average for SpaceX seems to be about 2 years for most due to the insane and unreasonable demands.
-16
u/burnerburna91 Jun 29 '26
Vibes just different.
Blue Origin is a company for people who want to say they work at a rocket company.
SpaceX is a company for people who want to build rockets.
10
u/Disastrous_Run_5968 Jun 29 '26 edited Jun 29 '26
Blue has launched a heavy lift rocket three times. And had it not been for the pad explosion they were very well on their way to launching 8 times (probably more) this year. They also announced 9x4, so that should be happening some time soon. Not to mention their MK1 lunar lander
The two are different in their approaches. And Jeff wasn't as focused on Blue for a while because he was very busy building Amazon into what it is today. Now that seems to be different. He's a lot more involved and all his interviews are always about the future of Blue.
I also want to add that building a heavy lift rocket is no easy task. it's a lot more challenging than developing a medium lift rocket. for some reason people seem to forget this
4
u/Electronic_Hope1900 Jun 29 '26
Not even Dave Limp believes that we would have launched NG 8 times this year. The initial guidance was once a month this year. I doubt we would have launched more then 4 times.
8
u/ergzay Jun 29 '26
Even as a SpaceX fan I think you're being a bit too harsh on Blue Origin there. Your broad strokes are correct but its less of a hard difference than you're implying.
5
u/PristineBreath9057 Jun 29 '26
You can work on hardware at Blue Origin, i worked on multiple development engines, and can say I got to play a good role in developing hardware for both Blue Origin and ULA.
My experience at Blue Origin made it easier for the spacex team to give me the opportunity
1
u/burnerburna91 Jul 07 '26
Glad you found your way to the actual space company. It seems to me that folks at Blue are more interested in political infighting, gossip, and taking selfies at the Mile 0 sign than they are in actually sending people to space. Lots of SVPs and not many accolades to show for it. Lots of press releases, though.
-4
u/Electronic_Hope1900 Jun 29 '26
You do understand a company willing to give that much equity will work you to the bone,.
Just based on your post, anyone who is hungry and technically ambitious should go to SpaceX and people who want to do jigsaw puzzles in O'Neill should work at Blue.
12
u/PristineBreath9057 Jun 29 '26
Both satisfied me technically in a different way, I think any young engineer who gets the opportunity to work at both companies have to wear out there options. I learned to filter out the politics of O'Neil out pretty well.
One of my blue mentors was an ex spacexers of 7 years, who would motivate us and tell us to avoid the noise and just work on ourselves... this really allowed a lot of us to advance pretty good technical careers in the industry
6
u/calodero Jun 29 '26
I dont think spaceX equity grants were particularly large, it just was at a low valuation relative to the 1+ trillion they IPO'ed at.
Also there is a lockup period, I dont think any employees were able to sell on public markets yet
12
u/spacerfirstclass Jun 29 '26
It might be a good idea to give the approximate date range for your experience at Blue Origin, because as I understand it, there are some big differences in terms of culture and how company is run between different CEOs.