Mission Engineer II

for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule)." So we can have those headings. We need to include a section only when posting has real specific content. We have content for About the role, Responsibilities, Basic Qualifications (requirements), Preferred Skills and Experience (skills), Additional Requirements (maybe also requirements). Pay: there is "Salary Range Mission Engineer II - $115,000 - $150,000" and later "Compensation Range: $112K - $150K". So we have pay info. Should we include Pay section? Yes, we have specific salary range. So include

Pay

containing the range. Schedule: No mention of schedule (like full-time, part-time, shift). Not present, so omit. Benefits: No explicit benefits listed. There's mention of facility, culture values but not benefits like health insurance, etc. So we should not create Benefits section because no specific content. Qualifications: Could we treat Basic Qualifications as Qualifications? But we already used Requirements for basic qualifications. The instruction list includes both Requirements and Qualifications. Usually Requirements are mandatory, Qualifications are preferred. But we have both basic and preferred. So we could put Basic Qualifications under Requirements, and Preferred Skills and Experience under Qualifications (or Skills). However they also have a Skills heading. Let's map: - Requirements: Basic Qualifications (mandatory) - Qualifications: Preferred Skills and Experience (preferred) - Skills: maybe we could also list specific technical skills like Python, thermodynamics, etc. But those are within preferred. Could combine. But we need to avoid duplication. Let's decide: Use Requirements for Basic Qualifications. Use Qualifications for Preferred Skills and Experience. Use Skills maybe not needed if we already covered. But we could still include Skills if we want to break out technical skills like Python, thermodynamics, etc. However the preferred list already includes those. To keep sections few, we can omit Skills heading if content is already covered under Qualifications. The instruction says prefer a few substantive sections over many thin ones. So we can have About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Pay. That's five sections. Check if we have any content for Benefits: none. Schedule: none. Now we need to preserve all substantive information, not invent or summarize away detail. We need to include all details from those sections. We need to format as HTML fragment: no /, no markdown fences. We'll output:

About the role

As a key member of the Mission Engineering team, you will lead programs across commercial, defense, and space microreactor missions – both on Earth and in space. You will serve as a primary technical point of contact for customers and stakeholders, driving the development, deployment, and application of Antares systems to meet mission needs. You will operate at the intersection of engineering, product development, customer program execution, and mission integration, owning how the complete product is applied to real-world missions from concept through end of life. You'll have strong engineering and physics fundamentals – particularly in thermodynamics, heat transfer, fluid mechanics, energy and power systems, and engineering economics – with demonstrated ability to reason from first principles, develop quantitative models, and maintain high technical rigor across disciplines. You will own product integration into operational end-user environments. The ideal candidate is a technically rigorous generalist comfortable moving between engineering disciplines, hands-on analysis, hardware, program execution, and customer-facing work. They can rapidly develop depth in unfamiliar areas, communicate effectively across engineering teams, and drive ambiguous problems to closure. Experience with DoD, DOE, NASA, or other government sponsors and procurement processes is preferred.

Responsibilities

• Lead execution of customer-facing and customer-funded R&D programs, owning cost, schedule, quality, contractual compliance, milestone execution, technical deliverables and internal/external reviews to align stakeholders and ensure mission success.
• Manage program costs, schedules, quality, and deliverables; translating customer needs into technical requirements; and performing or coordinating the engineering needed to close cross-disciplinary gaps.
• Drive product development to ensure Antares systems can be transported, deployed, commissioned, operated, integrated with customer infrastructure, maintained, and decommissioned.
• Success in this role requires a generalist mindset, cross-disciplinary problem-solving, and relentless focus on delivering value to our customers.
• Own mission-level product integration across the R1 lifecycle, translating customer needs into requirements, interfaces, operational concepts, and product development priorities that ensure the complete system can accomplish its intended mission.
• Perform first-principles analyses across disciplines, developing models and tools as needed to evaluate trade spaces, quantify mission impacts, answer mission-level questions, and close technical gaps between subsystem teams.
• Ideate and develop new applications and customer missions for Antares technology, supporting RFIs, proposals, white papers, and contract capture with technical concepts, system performance justifications, development roadmaps, and customer use cases.
• Lead and contribute to system architecture, interface definition, and technical trade studies, integrating engineering, operational, cost, schedule, and business considerations into product and program decisions.

Requirements

• Bachelor's degree in an engineering discipline (mechanical, electrical, aerospace, nuclear, systems, etc.), physics, or applied science.
• Exceptional technical writing and communication skills, with demonstrated ability to synthesize multidisciplinary engineering work into clear customer-facing deliverables.
• 3+ years of experience developing or delivering technically complex systems in aerospace, nuclear, energy, automotive, defense, or another mission- or safety-critical environment, with demonstrated ownership of multidisciplinary technical problems and program cost/schedule/technical performance.

Qualifications

• Master’s degree or PhD in an engineering field.
• Proficiency in Python for numerical/multiphysics work and familiarity with modern toolchains (Git and CI/CD).
• Strong foundations in thermodynamics, heat transfer, fluid mechanics, energy conversion and power systems, and engineering economics.
• Experience developing, integrating, testing, or commissioning complex hardware or energy systems.
• Experience with mission engineering, CONOPS development, system architecture, modeling and simulation, and trade studies.
• Experience across one or more adjacent technical domains such as high-temperature systems, turbomachinery, materials and composites, power systems, nuclear, or aerospace.
• Experience with government sponsors (DoD, DOE, NASA, USAF/USSF) and government-funded R&D, proposals, or contracting.
• Strong interpersonal and collaborative skills, enthusiasm for problem-solving, and a desire to optimize modern nuclear design and operation.
• Ability to drive decisions and close ambiguous cross-functional problems despite incomplete information and conflicting constraints.
• Experience working in a start-up environment.

Pay

Salary Range: Mission Engineer II - $115,000 - $150,000 (Compensation Range: $112K - $150K)

for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule)." It does not forbid other headings, but the examples are those. It says "Use

for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule)." That implies we should use those headings for sections; but we could also use other headings if needed? The instruction: "Use <