Great - much more successful. No disagreement.

Now look at the cost of a Saturn V. It's much more.

"I suppose it could be less expensive, but is it really?"

It is. Just look at ROI and per-launch cost for SpaceX vs. all competitors. For SpaceX, most of the cost is in fuel.

Well there's your problem. That's astoundingly low.

Did you check to find out what the expected pay is for a software developer is in your state? That's astoundingly low - about $30-60k beneath the average for almost every state in the US for new hires in 2025, and someone who's skilled in what you're asking for with 5+ years experience should be right at that $140-160k average for each state. That's a change of about 20k from 2020 (ie under inflationary rate).

The figures you're offering are reasonable for pre-covid 2020 or so in the Midwest for someone with 1-2 years experience, from what I've seen. $70k would've been the expected starting wage for someone in states like SD or WY with a 4-year technical degree in a technical field.

No wonder you're only getting useless people.

Or - are you not listing salary on the job posting?

When I was hiring earlier this year for what amounts to a traveling datacenter technician with Linux experience, every single candidate had some combination of developer skills, BI/AI experience, and 5+ years of systems administration experience. About half of them met my requirements and it came down to finding someone with the best personality fit and skills outsized for the position which I could use to grow my team. The pay wasn't great ($80-110k - basically entry level for anywhere doing anything in the software industry) because it was a very tightwadded company, and we were hiring nationally. Long story short: there's no shortage of good applicants when you're paying a competitive industry rate.

In your case, you're looking for a very specifically scoped, niche skillset and want to pay them well under what they're likely making now. You're either going to get applicants who're punching up significantly, or people who're desperate (in which case, nerves come into play significantly in an interview).

I think you should adjust your expectations and/or pay.

This is true for almost all the other sites, as well. LinkedIn certainly does it.

I have to think this is intentional boomer-satire.

Newspapers don't exist anymore, not functionally. They haven't for over a decade, and aren't relevant to anyone under 50. Most are now online-only. Tech jobs are not posted there - ever.

"Pound the pavement"? You mean past the biometric double factor authentication required to get into the building and onto the business's floor? Or do you recommend climbing the building and rappelling down the building?

"Call a company or organization" - there's this thing called LinkedIn, it's been status quo for over a decade... nobody shares their numbers, or even has business numbers available anymore unless you work with them directly. Most people will not answer a call from an unknown number.

This is the reasonable approach to this, but I suspect the way that LLMs work makes it difficult if not prohibitive.

Oh, so I can {checks notes} do the same kinds of things I actively block and avoid, like take polls and watch ads, in order to have to search for content amongst a sea of monetized garbage?

No thanks.

Can I ask what level developer you're hiring for, and what you're paying? That might be why you appear to be only getting Indian scammer applicants.

Yep. That's the way it's gone for the last quarter century, at least.

They will, also, invariably seek out people to do 2-3 roles that were previously done by 2-3 people. And they will likely pay only slightly more than skilled labor for those jobs, expecting them to be able to be done by runbook and day contract hires... but it won't be so.

They'll just do the same thing they did last time - continue to flood the market with H1Bs at a lower pay than they can get domestic workers, and make up for the quality shortfall in volume.

A lot of these problems would be solved by going to cardboard- and natural wax-based solutiosn, and would usually contribute to more convenience in the long term (ie buying in bulk = having things available when you want them = cheaper).

That requires people with long time preference, unfortunately.

The Saturn V rocket stages were not reusable and were not designed for re-entry. Kinda an important distinction.

The temperature resistance requirement is due to being a reentry craft.

You're comparing test flights for SpaceX (of which most of them have been) to, what exactly?

SpaceX has a success rate of 25:1 vs 18:1 for NASA - if you include test flights for NASA. Which is a more accurate way to represent things.

You realize the Space Shuttle had little to no aluminum exposed, right? It was coated with all sorts of other things to thermally insulate it because it wouldn't survive reentry otherwise, and it needs an overhaul after every flight, too. It also has/had a very different mission objective and purpose than Starship.

Every single competitor to SpaceX has: a worse launch success rate (except ULA, which is using archaic disposable launch vehicles); a far lower launch volume; a far higher launch cost (about 2-4x for comparable payloads). None of them are capable of orbital launch.

I'm unclear as to whether you had an actual point.

You're off on this... Aluminum is largely unsuitable for spaceship construction due to its temperature sensitivity and the fact that it makes anything constructed of it unsuitable for thermal cycling. Aluminum, unlike stainless, becomes extremely brittle when it's thermally cycled. It's an almost 5-fold temperature difference (150C to 1500C). That's not a small difference.

It also has additional cost savings over any other forefront material (eg. CF or Ti5) - like 30x for similar capabilities. If cost was no object, inconel would be the clear winner in most regards, but since cost is a significant factor.. We've known (NASA has) since the 50s that SS would be the superior metal used for such things, and here we are.

There is, arguably, nobody else in the space/rocket industry doing what SpaceX is doing, so I'm not sure how you could even have that criticism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lemMFXNXRIg