Relativity Space Interview Questions
& Process

My interview experience with Relativity Space was incredibly disorganized and unprofessional. The interviewer was clearly distracted, answering emails while I was talking. Instead of a real technical discussion, a junior engineer read scripted questions from a list, and he didn't seem to understand them. It felt like they were just going through the motions instead of actually evaluating me. For experienced professionals, you'd expect someone present and capable of engaging at that level. The biggest issue, though, was the role itself – nobody could explain it clearly. The job location kept changing: LA, then Melbourne, Florida, then Alabama, with no good reason or consistency. When I asked for clarification, I got different answers: it was posted, then put on hold, then maybe a priority again, but no one knew who was responsible for it or why it even existed. This wasn't a hiring process; it was pure chaos. It felt like a 'ghost job' – advertised externally but lacking internal alignment, urgency, or a clear definition. It's a waste of candidate time and reflects badly on leadership and organizational discipline. For a company aiming for aerospace innovation, this level of hiring dysfunction is a major red flag. If this is how they conduct interviews, I'd worry about how they manage programs.

The first interview was pretty chill, like just chatting with someone who really likes aerospace. They gave me the lowdown on the job and the company, and then we mostly talked about my resume and what I'm hoping to get from the position. The second interview felt more like a proper interview, with questions that seemed a bit more prepared than just a casual chat, which is what I'd expect. It was still pretty relaxed and a good overall experience.

The interview process had a recruiter call, then two technical rounds, and finally a long onsite interview. The onsite included a 1-hour presentation of my past work with questions, followed by four interviews: one with a leetcode technical problem, one system design, one personal/light technical with the team lead, and a final one with a principal engineer for questions and a freeflowing conversation. It felt like time was very short, making it impossible to go deep on any topic.

The interview process started with a recruiter call, then I had a technical call with the hiring manager, followed by another technical call with the group director. The final stage was a half-day onsite interview. The onsite included a 1-hour technical portfolio presentation and then several one-on-one interviews. The technical questions and one-on-ones were very theory-focused, seeming more suited for recent college graduates than experienced professionals. It felt like they valued rote memorization from academic work over practical industry experience. I didn't get an offer, likely because I didn't perfectly answer some one-on-one questions that touched on topics outside my professional experience. They might be missing out on good candidates by concentrating so much on theory.