Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ElongatedTime t1_iuu7ajc wrote

It’s $108,000 according to the website. The title is trash.

51

billionthtimesacharm t1_iuuagrr wrote

i know someone in her late 30s who is a rocket scientist working for a company that is contracted by nasa. she is working on a current project that is close to launch. what she is paid is appallingly low.

112

Fullscan19 t1_iuubgtw wrote

Fun fact - the average salary of all careers is somewhere between 0 and 1 trillion dollars

37

apetnameddingbat t1_iuud0zf wrote

My BIL is a director of deep space exploration at Lockheed Martin. He used to be a Chief Engineer for the same division. He has stuff rolling around on fucking Mars with his name on it.

I'm a systems and cloud engineer at a startup. After bonuses, I make ~$50k more than him. It's insane how low-paid of a field aerospace is.

325

PigSlam t1_iuudgmq wrote

If you’re going to give a range, just don’t say average.

85

ps00093 t1_iuuf442 wrote

Santa must have a hard fucking time when he visits China.

4

PrudentDamage600 t1_iuugjce wrote

When people complain about spending government money on space programs instead of helping the poor I tell them that the space program IS helping because it pays salaries and the wages are taxed and they buy things from companies who have employees, etc.

7

Adept-Bobcat-5783 t1_iuuiopa wrote

Around a 100k paid holidays, vacations, benefits and pension for doing something you love and are proud of. Sounds like the good life. If they throw in college tuition paid after 5 that would be enticing

24

sdfree0172 t1_iuujmfp wrote

Someone doesn’t know what an average is, clearly.

4

crazy-robot-guy t1_iuuko0p wrote

That's like saying "the average human adult is between 4 and 7 feet tall" - technically I'm sure it's true, but it is in no way useful information.

3

riaKoob1 t1_iuukrz1 wrote

I worked in aerospace for few years(software engineer) and surprisingly this is nowhere near as high to what Google, Facebook or twitter pays.
We had many very good engineers leaving the workforce to these industries.
The only thing keeping people in the industry was the benefits.

23

CarlJustCarl t1_iuul9dv wrote

I suspect the women get more towards the $70k portion

−12

crazy-robot-guy t1_iuum3sw wrote

Replying to aLobsterFest (#432,213)

Yeah, but those two numbers are so far apart that any reasonable person (and probably most unreasonable ones too) could probably have guessed that. If I say "the average human body temperature is between 20 and 70 degrees Celsius", while I may be technically accurate, I'm in no way communicating useful information.

13

Elliott2 t1_iuunut5 wrote

My BIL I think makes near 70k portion. Then again he is a moron and should probably be making less

12

Bandsohard t1_iuutkpk wrote

Everyone I know in Aerospace in a technical role has a starting salary out of college of like 70-75k, about a 3% raise each year, and about a 5-10% bump per promotion every 3 ish years. If they job hop with a few years experience they get like a 20% raise or whatever. Making like 120k with 5 years experience really isn't that bad.

The younger people job hopping are going to be the ones self reporting. You aren't going to get much reporting from one's in management roles or committed to a company long term. Plus people willing to self report are usually those who feel underpaid and are filling out like glassdoor reviews before they job hop themselves. But yeah, tech companies wanting people in cloud or software roles are obviously going to get paid more.

25

Broad-Escape2347 t1_iuutnv6 wrote

Based on the tittle OP doesn’t know how average works. Or at least he sucks at grammar

0

syizm t1_iuuxpwi wrote

I worked aerospace for a long while.

Its a bit low in the salary department but the work is fun, usually fascinating, and rewarding.

It was the lowest paying job I've had as an engineer, but still the best for many reasons.

69

aw_tizm t1_iuuxxvv wrote

Replying to apetnameddingbat (#432,084)

Low-paid? I know several making >$110k after 5 years in industry. Not insanely low by a long shot.

Seems like software is insanely high.. compare your salary with literally any other engineering field

46

she_speaks_valyrian t1_iuuzj7r wrote

Replying to kyoto_magic (#433,002)

The biggest companies are everywhere. Huntsville is the outlier, maybe parts of Texas are on the cheaper end, I'm not familiar. But your looking at Southern CA, Bay Area/Ca, Denver area, The Cape Florida, Houston. Maybe a little in New Mexico, Phoenix, but that's minor.

I sell equipment that supports this industry covering a territory from Texas to the west. My clients aren't in the cheapest of areas. 100K isn't going that far...

8

C_Arthur t1_iuv16fe wrote

The thing to consider here is job security. They may make 20-30% less than someone doing comparable work at a silicon valley company but it's largely government contracts that make the job security rock solid. We will see the silicon valley tech industry lay off employees and definitely slow down pay increases as we go into a recession at some point in the next decade where the defence contractors really don't.

7

Roamingkillerpanda t1_iuv1uhd wrote

Replying to Bandsohard (#432,834)

Yeah that’s what I did essentially, 5 years out making 130k plus a 5-7k bonus. Didn’t job hop as much but leveraged some good situations with counter offers.

If you’re just putzing around and taking the meager 3% raises every year you’re just playing yourself.

8

Spartancoolcody t1_iuv27iq wrote

Replying to charleswj (#432,938)

Referral bonus. It’s worth a shot to ask for it actually but probably better to do via LinkedIn or at least with a resume attached so you know a little bit who you’re recommending.

0

root_over_ssh t1_iuv33pg wrote

Replying to syizm (#432,964)

Yep, my previous job sucked, but watching a launch or hearing people talk about one was always fun when you made something that was a part of it (even if there were many alternatives they could have used)

19

salocin22 t1_iuv5235 wrote

Replying to aw_tizm (#432,975)

I think it’s more so that software compensation is more commensurate with the value provided to the company. Sure, plenty of Space Engineering positions pay 100-200k, but they are managing the work for 50-500 million dollar programs over a 2-10 year span.

I know plenty of very well paid software engineers, and I wouldn’t consider them more intelligent or efficient or getting more done than engineers in aerospace or anything, but software has become so important and with not enough people to do it that they can’t ask much closer to the going rate.

I read an article/study of NASA approved contractors (which many businesses have to go through to work in the public sector), and over half of those companies up charge their engineering hours up to 10x what they are actually paying the worker. The money has always been there, it’s just an inefficient system. In my personal experience most Aerospace grads or professionals are sometimes doing just as much software dev work as the actual software engineers, particularly in the areas of test or any sort of ground system work.

11

Spartancoolcody t1_iuv6mlj wrote

Replying to charleswj (#433,300)

No not really, it’s probably got a better chance to get you in than applying to random job postings. If it’s stupid and it works it’s not stupid, or in this case “cringey”.

−2

charleswj t1_iuv8cfk wrote

Replying to Spartancoolcody (#433,313)

Just because something could ultimately work in their favor doesn't make it less cringe. I could stand in the corner begging for money even though I have a job, and maybe make some extra cash, but it would still be cringey.

Stupid is not the same thing as cringey.

−1

thCLalex t1_iuvkf4h wrote

Im an aerospace engineer, started my Msc in space engineering. In Spain the best the best deal that you can find for someone with a degree and Msc hopefully will be 40k... Being that the best case in which you will be looking for the job for almost a year without luck. Btw 6 years working my ass off in university, Im just losing hope at some moments...

1

bart416 t1_iuvotin wrote

Formerly worked for an ESA subcontractor, I was paid about the same as during my Ph.D., so not particularly great. Mostly did it out of interest and because it looked good on my resume. Switched industries and my salary increased by about 30% overnight. About a year later I was already at 50% more than when I worked there, and had a far better benefits package. So that salary seems quite wrong to me.

But as to the work itself, fun job contents, technically very challenging, but a horrible work environment due to agency politics and questionable management policies at many of the defence contractors out there. For example, as an engineer you don't particularly enjoy being entangled in drawn out politically-driven discussions, but that's the position you end up in when you make choices about hardware procurement in those projects. And then you got to deal with folks asking the most ridiculous questions imaginable for hours on end to try to make you sway, and you can't lose your temper at any point during said question rounds, and after months of that you can finally use the technically correct solution. It's bloody atrocious to deal with and the two years I spent in that industry noticeably aged me, it makes dealing with academics who have a rod stuck up their arse look like a relaxing day on the beach by comparison.

And then we haven't gotten into the sunken cost fallacies inherent in these projects, etc.

2

StylishStylo t1_iuvskga wrote

Replying to sharksnrec (#433,856)

Well I guess it takes a bit more than basic maths to realise that "on average" here just discounts the extremities. It wouldd be better to say how many of the 500 fall in the given range.

−2

Xaqv t1_iuvty57 wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#432,590)

I wouldn’t want to be underneath one of those ways that blows things up for all the oil in Iraq. On the other hand, think of all the high paying jobs there are in weapons manufacturing.

0

wrigh516 t1_iuw00vq wrote

Replying to syizm (#432,964)

I have a degree in Aerospace Engineering. I eventually went back to school for a higher degree in Data Science for the pay and higher demand. I was swimming in opportunities in Data Science when Aerospace went bone dry. I also studied Computer Science in undergrad, so the transition was easy.

9

flyer43 t1_iuw2oux wrote

Pay is ok, about 90k with 3.5 years and a masters degree. I think the real weird part of the aerospace industry is the wide variety of benefits/ pto packages. But what’s irritating (something that has been alluded to here) is that companies just don’t really care about retention. You almost have to job hop or you’ll be stuck with paltry raises. The only real way to keep making more is to switch. Which is frustrating if your niche within the industry isn’t as large.

6

thehorseyourodeinon1 t1_iuw4gdy wrote

Replying to billionthtimesacharm (#432,485)

Is it with a SpaceX type outfit? I've seen that high demand positions with lots of interest pay less and work employees hard because they provide great wor experience. People don't last long in these positions and do it mainly for the prestige and experience.

5

sjrotella t1_iuw5huw wrote

Replying to Roamingkillerpanda (#433,132)

It sucks cause there's only one real company I can work for in my city, and my wife doesn't want to leave. I could be making SIGNIFICANTLY more than what I currently do as an aerospace engineer, but because the wife won't leave her parents, I cant.

3

danielravennest t1_iuw5mg9 wrote

Replying to riaKoob1 (#432,433)

> The only thing keeping people in the industry was the benefits.

And the coolness factor. There is no substitute for when walking to the cafeteria to get lunch means going past Space Station modules being built.

9

Leading-Ability-7317 t1_iuwcuz1 wrote

Replying to apetnameddingbat (#432,084)

Lockheed is known for low balling as well. I can only speak to software engineering salaries but I received an offer from them in my last job search and they came in at 40% lower than my other offers and wouldn’t budge. Maybe they are baselining around other engineering fields but at least for software engineers they pay horribly.

12

apetnameddingbat t1_iuwd6u0 wrote

Replying to Leading-Ability-7317 (#435,070)

I applied once to a Sr. Staff engineer role there. They offered $225k total comp ($190k base and the rest was bonus). The startup I'm at pays Sr. Staff engineers >$500k total comp, half in salary, a 20% bonus, and the rest in stonks.

3

MVRK_3 t1_iuwdx6u wrote

Replying to Bandsohard (#432,834)

Obviously it’s not a bad salary, but for what the career entails, it seems like it. If you had the same schooling and experience in my government agency, you’d be close to around $150k easy.

1

Thoughtlessandlost t1_iuwh91y wrote

Replying to C_Arthur (#433,110)

The job security is not there I don't know what industry you're talking about.

The second your contract you work on is up you better already have another position lined up at your company or else you're getting let go.

It's normal to see companies shrink by thousands of employees when their larger contracts wrap up and the last units are delivered. You'll still make parts for repairs but that production line is getting shut down.

When shuttle ended half the aerospace industry disappeared.

Working in the defense and space industry, every single senior engineer will tell you to make as many connections as you can so that when the program you're on gets cancelled or finishes it's contract you have somewhere else to go.

2

xmilehighgamingx t1_iuwjt02 wrote

Replying to DBMS_LAH (#435,182)

You are clearly good at what you do. Mediocrity in one field isn’t necessarily worth excellence in another. I also wouldn’t discount the value of quality service. I would imagine quite a few software engineers would be much more intimidated by the thought of carrying on a conversation with someone for an hour than you are by the thought of programming. A good engineer should make more than a good barber, but there is nothing wrong with an excellent barber making more than the average engineer.

17

HeyBertha t1_iuwkfeh wrote

That’s sounds really low for the qualifications

3

link2edition t1_iuwnjkj wrote

I'm 7 years out of college with a mechanical engineering degree making 120k

Ya'll are making me think I need to step it up!

4

Cutecatladyy t1_iuwo8fi wrote

Replying to Leading-Ability-7317 (#435,070)

Defense contractors don't pay as well as the rest of the industry from what I've heard. But depending on the company, you also aren't likely to exceed 40 hours a week the way you might in other areas of the field.

9

Xaqv t1_iuwu1mo wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#435,635)

Not to be so revealing (of one’s frailties). Save something for speculation about mysterious quality that would be attributable to oneself.

1

Xaqv t1_iuwzlfp wrote

Replying to Ya_Boi_Rose (#435,340)

To paraphrase G. Harrison , “Everyone has choice when to and not to absolve themselves of perceived malfeasance. It’s you that decides.”

−2

Cutecatladyy t1_iux07ap wrote

Replying to volvogiff7kmmr (#435,870)

One of my friend's boyfriend is a computer engineer at SpaceX, and he had to work 80hr weeks alternating day/night shifts for $80kish in California. Granted, almost no one in tech is quite as horrible as Elon Musk when it comes to treatment of employees, but it can happen. I don't know how big of a field aerospace outside of defense contractors though, so I do have a data gap there.

2

CallinCthulhu t1_iux11ww wrote

Replying to salocin22 (#433,256)

Yeah the reason Software is paid so high compared to other engineering fields is margins. That’s it. Software development has insanely high margins, the only costs are developer salary and compute. Given the high margins it allows for more room for competition for developers.

For traditional engineering, there is a lot more overhead, so salaries don’t have room to grow as far in a competitive environment

2

abark006 t1_iux30bt wrote

I work in aerospace finance. This is fairly accurate, been on the job for 4 years but I have a graduate degree. I’d say I’m on the mid high end of the graph.

2

Decronym t1_iux4nt8 wrote

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:

|Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |EA|Environmental Assessment| |ESA|European Space Agency| |NOAA|National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, responsible for US generation monitoring of the climate| |SV|Space Vehicle|

^(4 acronyms in this thread; )^(the most compressed thread commented on today)^( has 7 acronyms.)
^([Thread #8214 for this sub, first seen 3rd Nov 2022, 17:33]) ^[FAQ] ^([Full list]) ^[Contact] ^([Source code])

1

salocin22 t1_iuxdyb4 wrote

Replying to CallinCthulhu (#436,260)

The margins really aren’t that much different, the overhead between infrastructure/etc. between the hardware and moving parts between the two aren’t that much different in my experience.

Software positions (at least the ones I’m familiar with) revolve around products. If you are a software engineer at Cisco you either work in sustaining/maintaining/troubleshooting products for customers, or you work on developing the product itself. You are “ahead of the curve” I would say with regards to contracts or procurement. In other engineering fields, the only difference is that a company is contracted to do XYZ, but based on work and engineering hours and deliverables as opposed to being product based. This essentially creates a bunch of middlemen between money received and work being done, where companies are paying realistic amounts (or getting paid) for work, but that money is cut tenfold before getting to the people doing the work.

Creating a similar example, you could be testing a spacecraft assembly at a company like Rockwell or a smaller company, who is then contracted by Lockheed for a spacecraft or hosted payload, who was originally contracted by NOAA or NASA or whoever. Your actual work has the same value as a software engineer, you’re just getting bent over because many companies are trying to get their dirty hands on the pie.

1

HorseFightingLeague t1_iuxhvcj wrote

Replying to PrudentDamage600 (#432,253)

> I tell them that the space program IS helping because it pays salaries and the wages are taxed and they buy things from companies who have employees, etc.

😂 sigh. Someone doesn't understand taxes, nor government budgets, nor the baked in profit of government contracts.

1

Cdn_citizen t1_iuxjga9 wrote

I remember friends’ in career class getting matched as Aerospace engineers back in the 2000s

Oddly enough the salary range is about the same as then…

2

3DSamurai t1_iuxxbgf wrote

Replying to Mocker-Nicholas (#436,404)

Agreed. As a 3D artist, I could make significantly more money working for a non gaming company, making models of products for their online stores than I could working as a junior-mid level artist at a game studio making fun models of robots and aliens because no one wants to sit and model shoes all day every day, while everyone wants to make games and movies.

1

Adept-Bobcat-5783 t1_iuy2vud wrote

Replying to iPinch89 (#437,559)

Agree but job security holds some value also and NASA pay is slightly lower than private. Some fields are actually decently paid . My buddy works there but in cyber security and makes about $150k plus the perks and it’s extremely laid back. I would assume that there are others making much more. I’ve worked at nasa but through a contractor and not directly. Strict but laid back. I met some specialist, nuclear physicist for example that I can’t imagine being underpaid but who knows nasa offers a lot of security. So it could possibly be the reason why. Small examples again but this is from my own personal experience. I would love to work there and my whole comment above was based on me envisioning working there lol.

1

escapingdarwin t1_iuybnms wrote

Media report of alleged factual data that has no meaning.

1

PHANTOMX0071 t1_iuyelo3 wrote

Does this also apply for the defense industry? Like working for defense contractors?

1

HereForTheFood4 t1_iuyj6fp wrote

Replying to syizm (#432,964)

That is because NASA is on a shoestring budget now. They really ratcheted the price of the contracts down.

They use the appeal and noteriety of the agency to attract employees and pay them under market average.

1

Omar___Comin t1_iuyly7t wrote

Replying to HorseFightingLeague (#438,582)

Bro everyone in this thread but you seems to have a grasp of this lol. But sure, why just be wrong when you can be wrong AND condescending

It's a supply and demand issue... its not because the people who apply for cool jobs are so passionate that they don't care about money.

1

HorseFightingLeague t1_iuynfsv wrote

Replying to Omar___Comin (#438,606)

> It's a supply and demand issue... its not because the people who apply for cool jobs are so passionate that they don't care about money.

So you think if the $50 engineer demanded $100 with the rest, no hire would be made. That the company would walk away and say "no, we don't need this after all." That is your understanding, yes?

0

EvilWevil71 t1_iuyqlwm wrote

California electrician here. 120k-150k a year depending on overtime.

People working on anything that has to do with aerospace should be WAY MORE. IMO.

1

QuentinUK t1_iuysb33 wrote

A rocket scientist should be able to get the average down to a narrower range, even a single value.

1

crazy-robot-guy t1_iuywkfs wrote

Replying to _AndyJessop (#433,319)

Then it's worse than not useful, it's potentially very misleading - real-world data (and salaries in particular) do not always follow that distribution. There's a reason medians are often the preferred benchmark.

1

DoktorElmo t1_iuzv032 wrote

Replying to apetnameddingbat (#432,084)

Here I am, Europoor from one of the „richer“ central european countries, thought „damn that‘s a nice average salary“, only to read the comments and notice how bad we are really paid here in Europe even with a masters degree :D

2

DoktorElmo t1_iv20r2f wrote

Replying to apetnameddingbat (#441,787)

Yeah, but we on the other hand have problems with other bullshit. Thanks to wages growing slower than inflation since many years in the EU, needing a new car or even a washing machine is a big problem, due to next to no disposable income left for many families here in the EU. That won‘t happen when you earn 70k+ a year (only 3% of us working Austrians earn that much!) with far less taxes. In the US, you might be in a tough spot when shit hits the fan, but here you are in a slightly less tough spot all the time and when shit hits the fan, you better have a private insurance as well because the public health sector will give you an appointment for surgery in maybe 3 months due to no capacity, even when you have cancer. Wage- and ingflationwise, we are super fucked here and our public health sector is bled dry.

1

syizm t1_iv47wjo wrote

Replying to geniusgrunt (#439,730)

Its relative and comparative. $160k in Aero might be $200k elsewhere. Its typically some fixed % lower, but not always.

Its a mature albeit advanced field, which might explain it. As well so much of the aerospace sector is tied to the defense industry which similarly pays (comparatively) low.

2

syizm t1_iv4a8qh wrote

Replying to wrigh516 (#434,438)

Hey, I now do data science with an engineering degree also - from a mech e position in aero.

Its a good field. Usually fairly easy work (aided by software and basic principles) that 95% of the population considers sorcery. Good stuff.

2