This might genuinely be the worst interview process in the entire tech industry. After a recruiter enthusiastically called me every day for a week, emphasizing the team's strong interest, I finally had my interview scheduled with their hiring manager/technical lead. The entire interaction was indicative of why SpaceX is notoriously terrible to work for, and my interviewer was the absolute embodiment of that reputation.
Conducted online via Microsoft Teams and proctored using Codility, the interview was initially described as a technical screen in C++, suggesting typical topics might be discussed. Despite thorough preparation on my end, the actual question presented was absurdly vague and unnecessarily complex—a poorly-worded, three-sentence task instructing me to "write an algorithm to handle a pressure chamber system using velocity data from mission control during liftoff." No specifics were provided about parameters, data types, or expected results.
When I politely asked for clarification or additional context to better structure my solution, the interviewer provided none. I immediately began outlining my approach, clearly explaining each step of my thought process. I proposed a viable solution involving linear interpolation, accurately addressing the algorithmic needs of the problem. Despite this, the interviewer seemed dissatisfied from the start, repeatedly interrupting to suggest overly complicated, irrelevant changes that served no practical purpose other than to gatekeep and unnecessarily increase difficulty.
As I approached completion, correctly implementing the algorithm and constructing a test case table to validate my solution (something the interviewer himself failed to provide), he abruptly insisted I use a different, nonsensical approach involving changing variables directly rather than my nearly completed function. His insistence had no technical justification, merely serving to complicate the straightforward validation process.
When I calmly questioned his reasoning, hoping to understand his rationale, he became visibly impatient, irritated, and incredibly unprofessional—akin to a teenage temper tantrum masked by a rocket scientist’s inflated ego. Without further discussion of my resume, relevant experience, or solution accuracy, the guy hit me with "We're just gonna end the interview here, good luck," and abruptly exited the call.
This interview experience clearly exemplifies the worst form of technical gatekeeping: deliberately vague, poorly structured, and managed by someone who appeared more interested in artificially inflating complexity rather than assessing genuine problem-solving skills. The interviewer’s rude, abrupt termination of the interview after I provided a correct and fully workable solution speaks volumes about SpaceX's interview culture—petty, unprofessional, and fundamentally broken.
