Space Founders Can Help Engineers Say Yes to an Offer (Here’s How)

In space, retaining the skills you need often means a cross-country search. It also often means asking an engineer to relocate to bring your mission to life. Asking someone to relocate for a role is asking them to uproot their life, and their family too. That’s not a decision most people make on a recruiter’s word alone.

We’ve written to candidates directly about what they need to consider before relocating for a role. Founders can do a lot to help prospective candidates say yes to their offer. Here’s what you need to know about a relocation offer in space.

Is Relocation Really Necessary?

Because space talent is geographically clustered around the country, local talent often won’t cut it. Avionics and propulsion-test work has to be in person, so if you’re not based in Huntsville or the Golden Corridor, there’s no way around it. Even when talent is available locally, the market is competitive enough that you may still need to look elsewhere.

Remote work isn’t an option in space the way it is at software companies. More than 80% of the roles we place at EVONA require some sort of on-site presence, and for electrical engineers, that number climbs past 90%. By definition, roles that require clearance can’t be done remotely, and a lot of hardware work has to happen where the hardware is.

The engineers who will get you to Series B aren’t just choosing a job. They’re choosing a life. If they have a spouse, signing your offer may impact their partner’s career too. If they have kids, their schooling will be impacted. Making a hire like this means winning their family’s buy-in, and that’s where the founder’s role in a relocation offer comes in.

The Recruiter Closes, the Founder Seals the Deal

In space startups, the founder plays an important role in getting engineers to buy into their vision, especially when it may require them to move. The recruiter identifies and headhunts the talent, presents your story and vision, negotiates the numbers, and stress-tests whether the engineer is really ready to move. Once that’s done, the founder makes the mission real.

How We Support Engineers to Relocate

Before an offer goes out, our job is to make sure nothing about the move is unresolved, so engineers can make an informed, confident decision.

Even before the first interview, we start asking prospective hires the hard questions they may otherwise avoid. That way, founders have the best chance of the engineer they liked signing on the dotted line, and sticking around long after.

This also lowers the chances that a newly appointed hire will reconsider after a counteroffer. We’ve seen a candidate walk away after already relocating and starting on-site, only to have a former employer come back with a strong enough counteroffer to change their mind. Surfacing hesitations before an offer goes out is what prevents that.

One of the most important questions we ask is: “Has your partner agreed to the move?” That’s because being “open to a move” is not the same as seriously considering the real-life implications.

We test for it rather than take their word for it. That’s not because we don’t trust them, but because the more engineers can consider the cost to their livelihoods upfront, the better prepared they will be when an offer comes. Beyond checking whether their family is on board, we run through a series of logistical considerations, including schools, notice periods, and housing. We only send an offer letter once we’re confident the candidate has thought through everything.

Where the Founder Comes In

With so much at stake, a founder’s involvement in the interview process is often what seals the deal. The recruiter sells and presents the role, but a recruiter can’t credibly sell the company’s future, because they don’t own it. Only you can speak with real authority on where the company is headed, what the candidate would actually get to work on, and why the mission is worth the disruption to their life, and that conversation has a bigger impact on engineers than a pitch from a recruiter ever could.

We tell candidates considering an early-stage relocation to ask the founder directly about the runway. Having a real number ready is key. A vague answer here is one of the fastest ways to lose someone who’s weighing a real risk.

Support for the spouse’s side of the move matters here too, even something as simple as a warm introduction to a local team or pointing toward relocation resources. It shows the company sees this as a family decision, and candidates appreciate that.

What a Relocation Offer Accounts For

The Money

We also advise founders on how to make a relocation offer appealing. Because relocation touches most of the roles you’re hiring for, the costs are worth planning for before the first search even starts.

Check the offer number against the reality of the city your prospective hire is moving to. A cost-of-living calculator is a great tool for this. A salary that looks identical on paper can be a pay cut in a new city.

After calculating the cost-of-living gap, here’s what you should include to make a relocation offer worthwhile:

  • a cost-of-living adjustment
  • moving expenses
  • temporary housing
  • a house-hunting trip

This way, the number on the offer letter looks good in practice and not just on paper.

The Time

Moving a family takes time. It could involve anything from a spouse’s job search to selling a house. For relocation offers, founders need to factor a delayed start date into their runway.

We help by mapping the notice period, visa processing (if applicable), and moving logistics against the start date. Founders who are flexible about the start date have access to engineers worth the wait.

The Takeaway

A recruiter closes the candidate. But a candidate who relocates is likely choosing your company for years. And that decision will ultimately get made around a kitchen table, not in an interview room. The startups that successfully navigate relocation offers aren’t always the ones offering the biggest relocation package. They’re the ones where the founder gets in front of the candidate early, making an indisputable case for the mission.

Building a relocation offer for your next hire? EVONA’s recruiters have walked hundreds of space engineers through this exact decision, and we can help you get ahead of the questions that decide whether they say yes. Find more on hiring in space at EVONA Insights.

Does Your TA Team Have the Capacity for Scale?

You didn’t build a space company for your lead engineer to sit in interviews all day. The obvious cost of a slow hiring process is the fee, the job board spend, the weeks on the calendar. The real cost is the opportunity cost: the person who should be building your proof of concept is sitting across a table instead. 

You need a specialist in space recruitment. Here’s why:

Specialists vs. Generalist Recruiters

Hiring for technical know-how in space is much harder than technical recruiting in other industries, and your TA team will feel it. The average space-sector role takes about 10 weeks to fill, per the UK Space Sector Skills Survey 2023. And it’s not getting any easier. Working with specialists dedicated to the space industry can bring that down. At Evona, we’ve brought that figure down to 6 weeks.

Internal teams are generalist by necessity because most early-stage companies can’t justify more than one or two internal recruiters. Their priority is whatever’s open that week: engineering today, finance next month, ops after that.

Compare that to a specialist desk in the space industry. They do one thing, all day: recruit for space. They’ve spent years building a pool of passive talent ready to pick up their call. A recruiter working across multiple disciplines doesn’t have the bandwidth to build deep networks. They work reactively instead, starting from scratch with every new role. That costs time, and by extension money, that space companies can’t afford to lose.

Technical Vocabulary

Judging how well someone understands propulsion systems or AIT work is the engineer’s job, not a recruiter’s. That’s true no matter who’s in charge of the search. A generalist recruiter running a propulsion search might not know what an AIT engineer does, or why satellite integration experience doesn’t mean someone can build a satellite from scratch.

And without the technical vocabulary to know a weaker candidate from a stronger one, your lead engineer spends more time in interviews than they need to. A recruiter who understands space has the language to translate between the engineer who’s interested in the job and the one who needs it filled.

The Capacity Problem

A specialist desk embedded in space can put a whole team on a single skill set. If a client needs thirty propulsion engineers in a quarter, several recruiters work that search together to make it happen. One or two internal recruiters covering every department at once don’t have that option, no matter how good they are.

Space Recruitment Is Harder Than Other Engineering Sectors

We’ve mentioned a few reasons why space roles take longer to fill than most technical searches. But space is also different from other engineering sectors in a few specific ways.

The Mid-Career Experience Gap in Space Engineering

Space startups are securing funding and growing faster than the industry can produce the talent to staff them. The number of companies raising early-stage funding in the space economy has more than doubled since 2016, per Space Capital’s Space IQ report. There simply aren’t enough mid-level engineers who’ve seen a program through from start to finish, and for a startup to succeed, that’s the experience sweet spot.

These candidates aren’t out there applying for jobs. They don’t have to. They move based on trusted relationships and opportunities passed along the grapevine. That’s where an experienced space recruiter’s network can help, and where your TA team could really struggle.

And mid-career candidates won’t move for just any role either. Recruiters experienced in the space industry have seen enough to tell you what it takes to stand out as an employer of choice. They know what it takes to compete for that candidate, and how to close someone already weighing two or three other offers.

Security Clearance and ITAR Requirements

Because most clients in the space industry are government entities, the need for candidates who are already security cleared, combined with ITAR requirements, adds another layer of complexity.

Cleared candidates are already scarce, and competition is increasing. Add ITAR and export-control rules on top, and they rule out large parts of the general talent pool before a search even starts.

Geographic Concentration of Space Talent

Space talent clusters in a handful of hubs. For example, Colorado alone employs more than 55,000 people directly in aerospace and ranks first in the nation for aerospace employment per capita. A hiring surge in one of these hubs pits every employer there against the same small local pool, unless you find someone willing to relocate.

Relocation isn’t new in this industry, but it’s less avoidable than in most. A software company facing a tough local market can make the role remote. In Space, that won’t work because physical hardware, test campaigns, and secure facilities keep the job tied to one site. That means a hiring surge in one of these hubs pits every employer there against the same small local pool, unless you find someone willing to relocate. A relocation process needs to be handled with gloves to make sure everything goes to plan. That’s part and parcel of recruiting in the space industry, and we advise candidates on it daily.

Compressed Program Timelines

Commercial satellite programs now typically move from contract start to launch in 2 to 3 years, against a US government average of more than 10 years for complex space systems. That means missing the hiring window on a two-year program means liftoff never happens.

A Specialist Recruiter Means Time Back for Your TA Team

A TA function still has a place in an early-stage space company that a specialist desk can’t replace. They understand the company’s culture, its full hiring needs across every department, and the day-to-day relationship with each hiring manager. Your internal TA team can make the case for what makes your company worth joining, the culture, and the mission you’re on.

The space industry has real hiring challenges, but you don’t have to solve them with your internal team alone. Specialists who have helped space startups scale from seed to Series C bring a network of security-cleared, passive engineers and enough dedicated people to work the hardest searches. That’s the gap a specialist desk fills, so your TA team can focus on everything only they can do.

How To Turn Your Technical Test Into Your Best Recruiting Tool

We know you want the best technical talent out there, but most engineers in space already have a job they like. They don’t need to prove themselves and have no desire to spend hours working on a technical test. Finding and keeping the best engineers means rethinking how you use the limited time you get with them. We’ll show you how.

Does Your Interview Process Attract Passive Talent? 

A flight software engineer who’s shipped mission-critical code, or a GNC engineer who’s run their algorithms through a live validation cycle, is usually a few years into a role they’re not desperate to leave. And if they are thinking of leaving, their LinkedIn inbox is already flooded with opportunities. 

That’s what “passive candidate” means in practice: comfortably employed, not browsing job boards, and only interested if something compelling enough comes along.  If your mission and your product appeal to an engineer, they’ll apply their own filters before saying yes to an interview. Once you’ve got a strong candidate interested, the last thing you want is to lose the candidate due to an overly complicated technical stage.

We’ve been seeing engineers leaning toward the promise of faster liftoff startups offer and away from the slower pace of primes. This alone should tell you what they would expect from your interview process. 

The Cost of a Technical Test 

A take-home technical test is meant to filter for skill. In practice, it filters for something else: the willingness to sacrifice limited free time.

An active candidate will usually make the time. A passive one has no reason to. If you’re interviewing high-demand talent your recruiter has managed to headhunt directly, your interview process is as much a selling point as your company.

A take-home makes sense if you’re testing a developer. For a structural or propulsion engineer, the equivalent ask is a design review or a walkthrough of a real analysis. Either way, the test is a warning sign: it means the company hasn’t thought about the candidate’s time at all. 

A Screening Process Designed for Passive Talent 

One of our recruiters watched a fast-growing engineering team solve this exact problem. Every strong engineer they interviewed had other opportunities coming their way, sometimes half a dozen or more. A four-hour take-home test wasn’t just unpopular. It was actively costing them candidates.

So what did they do? 

They replaced a four-hour technical test with a 90-minute technical conversation. Here’s what they talked about:

  • how the candidate approached a real flight software or GNC problem they’ve shipped
  • tools they used
  • what their process looked like on a real project
  • how they’d handle a crisis

That’s it. That change in their interview process helped the company grow its engineering team from two people to 45 over roughly four years, with a 98% retention rate across that period.

An Interview Process to Attract and Retain the Best Engineers 

Here’s what to change if you want the same results with the passive engineering talent you need.

A considered interview process is not a checkbox exercise. This example proves that interviews can impact your long-term candidate retention as much as they can help you vet the technical skills you need. 

  • Replace the take-home with a scoped, time-boxed conversation, no more than 90 minutes, with the team the engineer will be working with.
  • Ask about work they’ve already done: What have they built? Why have they made this decision and not that one? What would they change now? 
  • Respect the clock. If a passive candidate has agreed to interview, don’t spend it testing their patience.  

A 90-minute conversation about how someone solves problems in the real world raises the bar on the candidates you have access to. It tests the actual job, not a synthetic one. Most of what a strong engineer does day to day is explain tradeoffs, defend decisions, and think out loud with teammates, not solve an isolated puzzle alone. A conversation tests that directly. A take-home tests something adjacent to it at best.

None of that matters if the candidate never hears about the role in the first place. Reach is still the harder problem, and it’s where a recruiter earns their keep: spotting the right profile, building the relationship, and selling the opportunity well enough that someone happily employed says yes to a conversation.

The Takeaway

Every open role in space is competing for a small pool of people who mostly aren’t looking. Your best candidate is not waiting to prove themselves. By using your interview slots wisely, you can show an engineer you value their time and skills. By doing that, you’ll find and keep the engineers who will help you scale.

How many roles are you hiring for, and over what period? If there’s one hire you can’t afford to get wrong, hand it to us. You don’t have the time to chase a candidate pool this small on your own, and you shouldn’t have to. If you’re not sure which of our solutions fits where you’re at, take a look and find the right one for your stage. 

Space’s Defense Boom Comes With a Staffing Problem: What Founders Need to Know

The US Defense Department is beefing up its space capabilities and companies of all sizes are getting in on it. The problem? To deliver on these contracts, they’re all after the same finite thing: people with existing security clearance.

More and More Space Companies Are Chasing Defense Dollars

Lately, a lot of money has been directed towards defense work, especially for work in the space industry:

  • President Trump created the Office of Golden Dome for America in May 2025, tasked with building a new missile defense system with major space components.
  • Defense-tech VC funding hit an all-time high of $14.6 billion in the first five months of 2026 alone, already past all of 2025’s full-year record of $9.6 billion.
  • The Space Force’s FY2027 budget request would more than double its FY2026 funding, a 124% jump and the largest proposed increase for any military service in roughly 75 years.

Not Everyone Can Staff the Contract

Defense leaning into space is good news for startups who want to get in on the action. That’s exactly what the Department of War had in mind with the digital hub they opened on the 11th of August. The hub has been built specifically to pull more startups and commercial space companies into Golden Dome-adjacent work. It sits alongside the Missile Defense Agency’s SHIELD contract vehicle, which has now approved 2,440 of 2,463 applicant companies for a pool worth up to $151 billion.

Approval Is No Longer the Bottleneck

That’s a 99% approval rate, and here’s what happens when you get approved. A SHIELD approval means you can now bid on task orders. It’s not a funded contract. Most of the companies in that 2,440 will never see funded work under it. The Missile Defense Agency has said as much directly. So winning task orders is one problem. Staffing them with cleared people is a separate one, and it’s the one that takes the most time. Here’s our advice: as a rule of thumb, if you can’t answer ‘Who will do this work, at what clearance level, and by when?’ before you sign, you’re not ready to bid.

Who You Know, Not Just What You Know  

It’s important for startup founders to understand what they’re up against once they win a slice of the defense pie. Picture this: you just won your first Golden Dome-adjacent task order. Congrats. Now you have 90 days to staff five TS/SCI roles or risk losing the contract. 

Investment into the defense industry may prompt more engineers to get clearance sorted in time. But for now, the skills shortage is very real, even for founders who don’t need cleared talent.

Add a need for clearance into the mix and it’s a double whammy. When it comes to cleared talent, the problem is not only “who can do the job?” but “who do you know that can do the job?”.

Why Cleared Roles Are So Hard to Fill

First, let’s clarify a common misconception. Founders often treat a lack of cleared talent the way they’d treat any other space hiring gap: too few systems engineers, too few propulsion specialists, not enough people who’ve built flight hardware before. Let’s throw more money at it. It’s an easy mistake to make in an industry where talent is so hard to come by anyway. But a skills gap is one you can only close with training, time, or a strong enough offer, while a shortage of cleared talent is a paperwork problem that’s out of your hands.

Cleared Hiring Is a Network Game 

You either hold clearance at a given level or you don’t. It’s not something you can grow into or “pick up on the job”. We’ve seen how work moves on the government-facing side of this industry. Almost nobody lands a defense-adjacent role based on a cold application. They get it through a person they already worked with: a former colleague, a past program, or someone from the same small, security-cleared circle they’ve known for years. That’s why no amount of money solves your immediate problem of hiring a cleared engineer.

In the words of Sam Wiltshire, one of our own recruiters:

“If they need clearance to start with, it makes the search harder, because […] there’s only a limited number of people that are cleared.”

You Have Two Options

Startups have two options when it comes to hiring cleared talent: hire engineers who are already cleared, or wait for clearance to come through once you’ve extended an offer. Both have their problems, but your best bet is the first. There are no easy answers when it comes to retaining cleared talent for defense contracts.

How Clearance Works in the US

The Three Clearance Levels

There are three levels of clearance available in the US: Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret, each requiring a deeper federal background investigation than the one before it. The investigation covers finances, foreign contacts, criminal history, and drug use, going back further and digging harder the higher the level.

Accessing cleared talent is all about timing, and startups in space need the talent yesterday to avoid wasting their runway. But time is not on your side when you have to get clearance sorted from scratch.

In the first quarter of fiscal 2026, it took between 156 days and 227 days for most of the Secret and Top Secret Clearances to finish. If a candidate already holds an active clearance at the same level from a previous cleared role, reciprocity typically allows a new employer to bring them onto a contract in one to four weeks instead.

But Wait, Can You Sponsor Clearance?

Before advertising cleared roles, founders need to ensure their company can legally sponsor a clearance. Even if you’ve raised a strong round and won a real defense-adjacent contract, you can’t sponsor a single clearance if your business doesn’t have what’s called a Facility Security Clearance (FSC).

Here’s what founders are up against:

  • FSC timeline: 3 – 6 months
  • New clearance: 5 – 7+ months
  • Reciprocity: 1 – 4 weeks

So the time it takes you to hire and clear the team directly determines when you can deliver. Cleared talent is not a separate HR issue; it’s the key to delivering your contract on time.

Runway Math: How Clearance Timelines Eat Your Cash 

Win the contract and use it to sponsor the FSC. Only then can clearance sponsorship start for anyone you hire. The FSC process itself typically runs three to six months from sponsorship to approval, longer if the paperwork comes back incomplete on the first pass.

What changes the hiring outcome is where you stand the day the FSC clears. If the people you want are already cleared, reciprocity turns their start date into weeks. If you’re starting the candidate search from zero on the same day, you’re stacking two multi-month timelines back to back. That also means you’re looking at eight to thirteen months, the better part of a year, before anyone’s doing billable work on the contract. 

Getting ahead of that means building relationships with cleared candidates before the FSC exists to sponsor them. Your job as a founder is to get into that circle before you need it. A recruiter who already knows the cleared talent pool can be doing the groundwork of networking with already cleared engineers, while your paperwork is still moving through DCSA. Winning the contract isn’t the finish line. Delivering on it depends on the cleared-staffing plan you built before you signed.

What Separates a Strong Early Space Engineering Hire

Get your first few engineers wrong, and reaching your next funding round gets a lot harder.  But the difference between a strong engineer and the wrong engineer has less to do with the tech and more to do with the kind of person you’re bringing on. 

How to Recognize the Right Engineer

The single most important trait of a strong early hire is not technical capability. It’s knowing what it takes to get to the next funding round. The best place to find that person? In the trenches of a startup, building something from the ground up. 

In the words of our very own Sam Stocks: “The dream hire has already done the exact journey. Joined at the seed stage, stayed six years, and went all the way through to an IPO.” That’s the dream, but these people aren’t easy to find. To recognize the right engineer, here are some traits to consider if you’re looking to kick your startup into high gear. 

Traits for Scale

Startups typically attract the type of engineers you’ll need to get to scale. Once you’ve identified someone with a startup background, here’s what to screen for in an interview. 

Adaptability 

You don’t need someone with heaps of experience. What you need is someone with three or four years under their belt, a solid technical background, and the grit to do whatever the stage demands. That doesn’t just mean clocking long hours – it’s adapting when a six-month test campaign fails and the roadmap has to be rebuilt overnight. 

We’ve seen a company relocate its entire business from Austin to Los Angeles with barely any warning. The engineers who make it through that kind of stage are the ones willing to go the distance, sometimes literally. 

Team-first thinking

The strongest candidates don’t only talk about what they’ll personally deliver. They talk about what the whole team needs to prove to get to the next round. It’s less about what one engineer brings to the table, and more about how the team gets there together. 

Passion 

The common mistake founders make is choosing the candidate with the most experience and the strongest technical qualifications over the one who genuinely wants to do the work. A technically brilliant hire who isn’t willing to commit to the work at a demanding stage will not work. Someone earlier in their career who genuinely loves the tech, and wants to get stuck in, is usually a solid bet.

Matching the Engineer to the Stage 

Working Against the Funding Clock 

There’s no generic “startup engineer” template. Two companies at the exact same headcount might need completely different technical skills. The skills you need depend on how much money you have, and the product you’re building. A software company, a hardware company, and a consultancy tend to need different people at the same stage, and within hardware, the specific kind you’re building narrows it down even more. A propulsion engineer who’s spent years on liquid engines isn’t automatically the right fit for a team building an all-electric smallsat bus. 

Once you’ve narrowed down the skills you need, don’t forget to factor in business literacy. The strongest early hires understand the funding clock they’re working against, not just the technical task in front of them. Someone who’s only worked inside a large defense program or a prime moves at a different pace than your company can afford. Your seed round doesn’t buy you that kind of time. Those programs are built around multi-year delivery windows, backed by funding that’s already secured. The pace that made someone excellent there can be exactly what stalls you here.

Every month that passes without proof the technology works is a month closer to running out of money. That’s why someone who treats the work as a pure engineering problem, disconnected from that clock, is not the best fit. 

The generalist trap

That’s also why you don’t want a pure generalist at this stage. You may have heard that a startup needs someone who wears many hats, and that’s true. But a generalist who oversees a program without doing any of the engineering themselves is only valuable once you have thirty engineers to manage. 

A strong early hire is still doing the technical work themselves, and brings a degree of specialisation to the role, with the ability to adapt and learn new skills. Because at this stage, there’s no team yet to delegate to. Building something that’s never been done before takes one kind of engineer. Building a better version of something the industry relies on takes another. 

The work

The role you’re hiring for today won’t be the same role in two or three years, and the right hire knows that. The roles that exist need building, not managing, and someone who’s drifted into oversight won’t have the hands-on ability this stage demands.

None of these things shows up on a resume. If your first ten engineers can’t deliver against the roadmap in time to raise the next round, the next fifty hires get a lot harder to justify. 

The #1 Reason Space Startups Lose Top Talent (It’s Not the Search)

Finding skilled talent is as much about what happens after the final interview as it is about finding the talent. When a hire takes longer than it should, it’s easy to doubt your recruiter or blame it on a lack of skilled talent. The brilliant candidates are out there – but is your sign-off process sending the right signal?

Why This Bottleneck Is Easy To Miss

From the inside, sign-off may not feel like an issue. You pay close attention to how long it takes for a shortlist to land in your inbox, and how fast a recruiter gets back to you with updates. You expect your recruiter to solve your hiring gaps. But it’s easy to forget that closing a candidate quickly is just as much your job as theirs. Too often, we’ve seen hiring managers delay feedback or sign-off, only to miss the exact candidate they needed for the role.

These Founders Find Talent Fast

This isn’t one recruiter’s opinion. Across searches spanning cleared defense roles to early-stage software teams, we’ve seen the same thing. Long processes, slow feedback, and roles that stall mid-search for weeks at a time are the top reasons a hire drags on, and founders are often unaware of the role they play in hiring delays. 

The clients who access the best talent quickly do two things. They provide feedback quickly, and they do it well. A one-word response like “pass” or “not quite” doesn’t tell a recruiter how to adjust their search for the next round. “Liked their systems background, want to see more hands-on testing experience” is great, because the recruiter can go find exactly that instead. Speed without detail still stalls things. 

The Search is The Easy Part if You Know What You’re Looking For

You might expect finding niche talent to be the biggest bottleneck in recruiting for space companies. But often, the paperwork is the problem. All you need is a well-scoped job description and a recruiter who knows what to look for. At EVONA, a strong shortlist comes together quickly, often within the first week.

But the main thing that stops a great hire from happening is slow sign-off. This looks like the paperwork sitting on a hiring manager’s desk while the candidate continues interviewing elsewhere. A role that goes unattended for a few weeks does the same damage. 

The Cost of Slow Sign-Off 

Because candidates don’t have insight into your schedule, they experience your lack of speed as a sign that you’re not interested, and they move on. A fast reply reads as genuine interest. In one case, EVONA filled a software engineering job in 9 days, with only the offer outstanding. The client’s own sign-off then took another 21 to 22 days, more than twice as long as the search itself. 

In specialities where the shortlist is genuinely small, like propulsion, avionics and RF, delaying sign-off could mean losing the one candidate you liked. That means starting from scratch again. Strong candidates don’t wait for you to approve their offer. The company that responds fastest is very often the one that wants to hire the most.

What Your Fastest-Closing Competitors Do Differently

At seed and Series A, solid hiring processes go a long way in securing the right candidates. You can create a sign-off process candidates will say yes to. That means deciding in advance who reviews the shortlist, and committing to a feedback turnaround before the search starts. 

And fewer people in the loop means fewer places for a decision to get stuck. The clients who hire fastest are the ones where the CEO or CTO reviews the shortlist directly, instead of a hiring manager whose plate is too full. 

This doesn’t mean you have to rush a decision. First, it’s important to draft a clear job description. It also means deciding, before the search starts, how fast you’ll move once the right person is in front of you. The space talent market isn’t getting any less competitive. One thing you do have control over is how long you take to say yes.

Is Your Space Startup’s Hiring Function Built for Series B?

Most Series A space founders treat their hiring plan as a later problem. Something to sort out once there’s enough headcount to justify it. It’s understandable. Getting the technology right comes first. Investor confidence is everything, and that means things like a competitive satellite bus, a propulsion system that actually works, a payload that holds up under review.

If you’re scaling on purpose, you need a plan for what happens after the tech gets funded. Everything about the business should be deliberate, and that includes how you hire and retain talent.

Every founder at this stage faces the same tension: hire the technical talent that helps you build the engine, or hire the operational engine that helps you bring those people in and keep them?

Get this right, and the engineers you spent months recruiting become the team that backs you to get to Series B. The tricky part is there’s no blueprint that says when it’s time to start building your hiring team. That’s what this blog post will help you figure out.

Your Hiring Function at Seed vs. Series A

At Seed stage, you’re the one setting the baseline. That means how hiring gets done, what the company stands for, and how the technology you’re building will change the space industry and the world beyond it. These are the things that will attract and keep the technical talent you need to scale. 

But when scaling becomes the priority, founders often hire fast on the technical side, and never hand off the culture work they started to anyone who can keep it going. Some of the startups we work with have their first hiring lead in place before they’ve even reached Series A, and this isn’t necessarily a mistake. 

Once you start scaling, there’s no time to think about how to welcome a hire on their first day, or how an interview should be run as standard practice. That’s the best case: getting this in place before Series A. What that looks like in practice is up to you.

What Do You Need Right Now?

Deciding when to bring on dedicated hiring support will look different for everyone. Here are two things to consider: how aggressive your growth plan is, and what you bring to the table as a founder. 

A more operational, almost COO-style founder could hold on longer without it. But if you’re technical and you’ve never run onboarding at scale, you need that support early.

Depending on your runway and how aggressively you’re hiring, you could consider fractional hiring support. This is usually a part-time generalist, brought in as a three-to-four-month bridge, with a view of actually bringing them on full time.

How Do You Hire Competitively as a Space Startup?

By Series A, most founders have already sat on the other side of the hiring table. Interviewing candidates isn’t new to them.

Founders know their own business inside and out. It’s what helps them sell the mission to the next engineering hire. But the hiring market? That’s a different story.

Do you know which company just poached three propulsion engineers from a competitor? Which skill set went from available to impossible in six months? Your talent partner can tell you. A specialist talent partner closes that gap. They’re embedded in the space industry and talk to the people building it daily. Knowing what’s happening in the market isn’t extra effort. It’s the whole job. That frees founders up to focus on building their business.

Armed with this knowledge, your talent partner can:

  • Shape the interview process itself
  • Provide real data on time-to-hire and salary benchmarks
  • Advise on equity structures
  • Sit with your hiring managers to define what the culture needs to look like
  • Screen candidates for cultural fit before they ever reach an interview

The Takeaway

Before Series A, hiring support tends to be informal or nonexistent, and you’re doing the culture-setting work by default, whether or not you call it that. After Series A, the real choice isn’t whether that function gets built. It’s whether you’re putting it to work to help build your company on purpose.

The interview process at SpaceX is notoriously demanding. We’re talking multiple rounds, stretched across five to eight weeks, by design. It’s not a template to copy, but a lesson to learn: build a hiring structure that’s yours, on purpose, instead of leaving it to chance.

What to Consider Before Relocating for a Space Role

Whether you’re looking at Long Beach or Hawthorne, relocating for a space role can be career-defining. But this is different from your typical career move: in most industries, you can take a new job without moving. In space, you often can’t.

Why Relocation Is So Common in the Space Industry

More than 80% of the roles we place at EVONA require some on-site work (44% hybrid, 38% on-site). And for electrical engineers, it’s more than 90%. Clearance-required work can’t be done remotely. By definition, no amount of Wi-Fi gets you into a security cleared role. And a lot of hardware work simply has to happen where the hardware is. You can’t test a rocket engine from your kitchen table.

This reality plays out in two common ways. Switch to a competitor with no presence in your city, and you’ll need to move. An engineer at Lockheed Martin in Denver taking a role at Blue Origin in Kent (Washington) doesn’t have a remote option. Get promoted or transferred within a large prime like Boeing or Northrop Grumman, and you might be relocated to a different program site. Whether you were thinking about it or not.

So this isn’t a hypothetical exercise. If you’re in this industry long enough, the relocation conversation will probably come up. In this blog, we’ll tell you how to have it properly. To do that, here’s a list of things to work through before an offer lands, so you can say “yes” or “no” with a straight face.

Is Your Spouse on Board, Really?

First things first. Before saying yes to an interview, have a real talk with your spouse. What will this move do to your relationship, your family, lifestyle and both of your careers? If you have a spouse and kids to consider, a move like this is a family decision rather than a solo one.

Can your partner do their job from there? Push past the polite yes. Does their industry even exist in that city? If your partner’s a marine biologist and you’re moving to Nebraska, “open to it” and “this works” are not the same sentence.

Ask the hard questions early. The candidates who make it through an interview process without doubts research everything, and don’t say yes until both partners are sure. We’ve seen this play out in two ways. In one case, a candidate moved from Vancouver to Toronto. His wife’s company had its headquarters there, so it was a straightforward move for both. On the flipside, another candidate’s wife had already started from scratch after a previous move didn’t work out, when his company folded.

And don’t forget your support network. Have you thought about who’s nearby that you’d actually call at 2am? Do you know anyone in the city you’re moving to? “We’ll make new friends” might be true, but it’s not a plan.

The Price of Bread: A Cost of Living Check

Here’s a quick test: what does a loaf of bread cost in your new city? If you don’t know, you’re not ready to negotiate salary yet. A bigger number on the offer letter means nothing if you haven’t figured out the cost of living. A move from Colorado to California on the “same” salary isn’t a lateral move, it’s a pay cut. Check the rent and you’ll see it immediately. Moving countries adds another layer: US dollars into Canadian dollars looks like a raise until you figure out what a CAD actually buys you.

Run the numbers regardless: 10 to 20 percent ahead of your current spending power, cost of living priced in, is a reasonable bar for a real raise rather than a lateral move. But pay isn’t the only reason to take a role like this. If you’re moving for the mission, the technology, or a company with real momentum, that’s a legitimate trade, as long as you’re making it with your eyes open. Know whether you’re taking a pay cut, and decide honestly if it’s one you’re willing to make.

Go Straight to the Source: Checking a Startup’s Runway

Considering the effort it takes to move, relocating for an early-stage company means you need to commit to their mission ideally for the next 5 years. With a family to consider, you need to know whether the funding will last long enough for you to build a life in a new city.

This isn’t a decision you make off a mission statement. A recruiter can tell you about the role, but only the founder can tell you how much runway is actually left. And if you can’t get a straight answer on funding, that’s a red flag. Ask directly for the number, and don’t accept “we’re in a great position.”

Timing Your Move: Schools, Housing and Notice Periods

Have kids mid-school-year? That’s not a footnote, that’s a reason to push your start date. Pulling a kid out of a school they’re happy in is much harder in February than it might be in June.

If you own a house, are you selling it before or after the move? If you’re renting, what notice do you owe your landlord? Does it line up with your start date, or are you about to double up on a rent payment?

Successful Moves Have This in Common

The moves that don’t work out usually involve: a partner’s hesitation, an aging parent you haven’t considered, a child midway through a school year. And you can’t solve any of these on a Zoom call.

None of this is an argument against relocating. We relocate people into career-defining moves all the time. The difference is that couples that start the conversation on day one give themselves the best chance for success. That means researching schools, neighborhoods, and grocery prices before there’s an offer on the table, not after.

The Move Might Be Risky, but Is It Worth It?

Not every relocation is about managing risk. The real question is whether that risk is worth saying yes to. Space is still an early industry. New companies are attracting real funding and building toward a five-to-ten-year horizon that didn’t exist a decade ago. If you’re at a large company today with a role that’s stalled, little say in what you work on next, and no real path upward, a company with a genuine plan for your career can be worth the move on its own.

Maybe compensation isn’t the real draw. Maybe it’s the technology. The chance to work closer to leadership. To put your name on something that will actually orbit. To work on a problem most companies aren’t touching yet. If you believe in the mission and the role enough, that’s a real reason to move too, even when the numbers don’t quite add up yet.

Can Space Manufacturing Talent Keep Up With NASA’s $600M Lander Deal?  

On June 30, 2026, NASA awarded a $600 million deal to three companies to build the next generation of robotic Moon landers. It’s one piece of their plan for a permanent Moon Base, continuously crewed by 2032. While doing something ground-breaking, this deal is betting on the availability of critically low space manufacturing talent. Companies involved will need to answer this question: “is there enough space manufacturing talent to actually build this?”

Who Got What: the Breakdown

Astrobotic, Firefly Aerospace, and Intuitive Machines have been tasked with delivering four landers between them, due on the lunar surface by late 2028:

  • Astrobotic takes $297.9 million, for two lunar deliveries
  • Firefly gets $144.2 million, for one delivery
  • Intuitive Machines gets $148.3 million, also for one delivery

Altogether, the deal is worth close to $600 million, awarded through NASA’s Commercial Lunar Payload Services program, as part of its wider Moon Base effort.

Things get really interesting when looking closely at that split. More than half of Intuitive Machines’ award ($79.7 million of the $148.3 million) has nothing to do with landing successfully on the Moon. It’s a performance incentive tied to proving the company can build the same lander again, on a production line.

What This Means for Space Manufacturing Talent

Steve Altemus, CEO of Intuitive Machines, said that NASA is “shifting the paradigm from custom aerospace engineering to commercial mass production of lunar infrastructure.”

Building one hand-built lander takes a small group of elite design engineers who can solve a problem once. Building the same lander over and over takes a different organization, and a different set of people to run it.

Three Companies Now Need:

  • Production and manufacturing engineers, to design the assembly line rather than just the lander
  • Assembly technicians, who can replicate the same standard every time
  • Supply chain specialists, who can source parts at volume
  • Quality and reliability engineers, because doing it once is no longer the objective

These aren’t new roles in aerospace. What’s new is the scale of hiring required. Nobody’s built at this volume before, so the people who know how are clustered in just two places: SpaceX’s Starlink line, and Airbus’s OneWeb facility. Three companies are now chasing that same small group of engineers, and there aren’t enough of them to go around. That’s why the more realistic hires might come from automotive and consumer electronics, instead of aerospace companies.

NASA’s Commercial Space Strategy Catches Up to Satellites

The industry has gone from reusing a rocket booster, to reusing 85 percent of a rover’s hardware, to now paying a company just to prove it can build the same lander twice. The shift we’re seeing in the production of landers, is something we’ve seen before with satellites. Airbus and OneWeb proved that satellites can be mass-produced way back in 2019, and Starlink pushed the idea further still. 

Their Florida facility ran two production lines, turning out two satellites a day. A custom satellite used to take over a year to build, and cost tens of millions. 

A satellite that fails just gets swapped out on the next launch, one machine among thousands. A lander doesn’t get that luxury. NASA’s deal covers four landers, not four thousand, and each one has to work the first time.

What NASA’s Money Can’t Buy: Space Manufacturing Talent

Money buys parts, tooling, and facilities. It doesn’t buy an assembly technician who already knows how flight hardware differs from anything else they’ve built, or a supply chain lead who understands what happens when one connector supplier misses a date. Those people exist in small numbers, and they aren’t waiting to be found.

NASA can fund the shift to mass production, but it can’t fully control how it plays out. The outcome depends on three companies succeeding at something none of them has done before, all while competing for the same scarce production talent, on the same deadline.

NASA has made the funding available to build landers on repeat. Whether Astrobotic, Firefly, or Intuitive Machines pull it off will come down to who finds the right people first.

Stop Counteroffering and Start Retaining Aerospace Engineers 

A counteroffer can’t undo the eighteen months that led to a resignation, but it can make an inevitable departure more expensive. Retaining aerospace engineers starts long before an engineer even considers resigning. A recent AIA–McKinsey workforce study found that aerospace and defense companies continue to face “industry‑wide attrition… at nearly 15 percent,”, more than double the U.S. industry average.

It’s the same instinct almost every time. One of your best engineers hands in their notice, and you do what any manager in your shoes would: find out what it would take, then match it.

You offer more money, maybe a new title, and they say yes. Six months later, sometimes less, they’re gone anyway. 

Should You Counteroffer an Employee Who Resigned? 

By the time you’re making a counteroffer, an engineer has often already done the hard part. They’ve decided to leave. They may already have an offer in hand. 

Asking them to undo all of that for a higher number is asking a lot. The engineers who accept counteroffers are often the ones who are still weighing their options. The result of a counteroffer is that you’re now paying above market for someone who has already mentally checked out.

To retain an aerospace engineer, the better question to ask is not “What can I offer to make them stay?” but “What happened that made them want to leave?”

Spot Signs of Disengagement Before They Hand in Their Notice 

As a manager, it’s important to look out for signs of disengagement. An engineer who used to push for more responsibility might stop volunteering for new work. Someone who is usually engaged becomes quieter in meetings. Conversations about the future become less frequent, or disappear completely.

Money matters, but it’s rarely the answer to a resignation. What space engineers care about is often less about salary reviews and more about whether they still see a future at the company, trust their manager, and feel connected to the work they were hired to do.

Reasons Engineers Quit: We Hear These All the Time 

It’s worth understanding why space companies lose engineers, because the resignation is often the result of problems that have been compounding for months.

Career and Growth Stagnation 

Sometimes the next step simply doesn’t exist yet. At a smaller space company, an ambitious engineer can find themselves doing senior-level work with no obvious path forward, while peers elsewhere are taking on bigger technical challenges or moving into leadership roles.

Mission or Program Mismatch 

Many engineers join because they believe in a mission. When that mission changes or gets delayed, the job they’re in can start to feel very different from the one they accepted.

Management and Leadership Friction 

Engineers rarely leave because of one bad day. More often, trust erodes slowly through missed promises, changing priorities, or a manager who makes it harder to do good work. By the time someone resigns, that frustration has usually been ongoing for a while.

Pace and Visibility of Progress 

Space programs can take years to reach major milestones. When progress feels slow and contributions go unnoticed, even highly engaged engineers can start looking elsewhere, for a place where they can have a more visible impact.

Autonomy and Trust 

Most experienced engineers want ownership. When every decision is second-guessed or too much time is spent navigating the process instead of solving problems, frustration tends to build quickly.

Compensation Structure 

Money matters, but it is not always the real issue. Often the problem is that an engineer’s responsibilities have grown while their compensation, equity, or recognition has stayed exactly the same.

External Pull Factors 

Space engineers know they have options. The moment they start taking recruiter calls, they are exposed to opportunities, locations, missions, and career paths they had not previously considered.

Burnout and Personal Capacity 

Launch campaigns, test windows, and critical milestones can demand a lot from people. Most engineers can handle periods of intensity. When the intensity becomes the norm rather than the exception, other offers might start to look more attractive.

Why Retention Got Harder in the Last Two Years 

Engineers have always had moments of doubt about growth, mission, or management. A few years ago, a frustrated engineer may have stayed anyway. There were only so many companies building serious hardware, and moving was a real gamble. 

But things have started changing. Capital is flooding into the sector, with new companies launching constantly, and almost all of them are hiring for the same skill sets. 

At the same time, space is becoming mainstream. The work is more visible, the salaries are more competitive, and employers are shaping their brands to appeal to the engineers they need. The engineer who used to feel stuck has far more options now than before. 

Instead of a Counteroffer, Do This 

A counteroffer is trying, too late, to compensate for the reasons an engineer has been unsatisfied in a role. The solution lies less in having a retention plan and more in paying attention from day one. Here are some things to consider as a manager in the space industry:

  • Make sure you are having the growth conversation before someone assumes their role is going nowhere
  • Be honest about changes to the mission and project timelines
  • Make sure an engineer’s compensation and recognition keep pace with what’s expected of them, and not what they were hired to do two years ago.

None of these things will save every departure. For some people, it’s time to leave, and no amount of attention will change that. But paying attention can change how an engineer feels about their role while they’re still in it.

A counteroffer can only respond to a resignation. The companies that retain their best engineers are not the ones writing the biggest checks at the end. They are the ones paying attention from the start.