Senior Systems Engineer

We need to output HTML fragment with sections: About the role (but we already have "About the Role:" in posting). Also Responsibilities, Requirements/Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule. We must only include sections that have real specific content. The posting includes: About Us (but we should not repeat job title; we can include About Us as maybe not a required heading? The instruction: use

for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule). It says we should use those headings when appropriate. It also says do NOT repeat the job title as a heading (the page already shows it) and do NOT put Job ID / requisition numbers as headings — fold minor metadata into a short

or drop it. It doesn't forbid About Us heading, but the list of examples didn't include About Us. However we could include About Us as a section if we think it's substantive. The instruction: "Prefer a few substantive sections over many thin ones." Might be okay to include About Us as a

About Us

with paragraph. But they gave examples of headings; not strict. I'd include About Us, About the Role, Responsibilities, Qualifications (maybe combine Basic Qualifications and Preferred Skills & Experience), Skills, Pay (Compensation Range), Location maybe? Not in list but could be included as a paragraph. They said only include sections when posting has real specific content. Location is present. Could add Location as

Location

. But not in examples; still okay. We must remove boilerplate: Equal Opportunity, ITAR Requirements, etc. Also remove navigation, cookie, legal, EEO, scam-warning, duplicated lines, application instructions. There's no explicit application instructions besides maybe "Learn more about the ITAR here." That's boilerplate; remove. We need to preserve all substantive information: About Us paragraph, About the Role paragraph, Roles and Responsibilities bullet list, Basic Qualifications bullet list, Preferred Skills & Experience bullet list, Additional Requirements bullet list, Location paragraph, Culture bullet list (top five cultural values), Compensation Range. We need to format lists with

• . For prose use

  . For headings use

  . We must not repeat job title (Systems Engineer) as heading. So we won't add a heading for that. We need to decide which sections to create: - About Us - About the Role - Responsibilities - Qualifications (maybe combine Basic Qualifications and Preferred Skills & Experience? Could separate Basic Qualifications and Preferred Skills & Experience as subheadings? But instruction: prefer few substantive sections over many thin ones. Could combine Qualifications and Skills into one section? But they have separate examples: Requirements, Qualifications, Skills. We could have Qualifications (Basic Qualifications) and Skills (Preferred Skills & Experience). Additional Requirements could go under Qualifications or separate? Might be part of Qualifications. We also have Culture section: could be its own heading. We have Compensation Range: Pay. We have Location: maybe its own heading. We have Schedule: not mentioned, so omit. We have Benefits: not mentioned, omit. Thus sections: About Us, About the Role, Responsibilities, Qualifications, Skills, Culture, Pay, Location. Check each for substantive content: - About Us: yes paragraph. - About the Role: paragraph. - Responsibilities: bullet list. - Qualifications: Basic Qualifications bullet list. - Skills: Preferred Skills & Experience bullet list. - Culture: bullet list of five values. - Pay: Compensation Range. - Location: paragraph. We must not include filler like "commensurate with experience". Not present. Now format. We need to ensure we don't include any markdown fences. Just raw HTML. Let's craft.

  About Us

  At Antares, our long-term mission is to make clean energy abundant from Earth to the Asteroid Belt. We’re fueled by the belief that advanced nuclear energy can strengthen our military, solve the climate crisis, elevate global living standards, and expand humanity's presence in outer space. To achieve our mission, we’re building mass-producible, inherently safe, deployable microreactors that can be used terrestrially, underwater, and in space. The Antares team hails from SpaceX, the White House, the Pentagon, the Department of Energy, MIT, Rigetti Computing, General Atomics, Relativity Space, Ursa Major, and National Laboratories like Idaho, Oak Ridge, Los Alamos, and Savannah River. Antares has raised over $600M in venture capital from top-tier investors and has hundreds of million-dollars on contract with the military services, NASA, and the Department of Energy.

  About the Role

  The Systems Engineer at Antares owns the quality of the product from design through operation and decommissioning. The Systems Engineer works closely with cross functional organizations (Quality, Mission Engineering, Mechanical Design, Nuclear Licensing) to make sure that requirements are incorporated, validated, and verified throughout the design, build, and operation of the reactor. We are looking for a candidate who is excited about diving deep into the details of product designs and passionate about building processes to ensure that current and future designs and changes are robust, reliable, and positioned for success. The successful candidate will ensure products meet reliability, safety, and performance standards throughout their design lifecycle, from concept to production. This role is critical in identifying potential risks, improving product robustness, and enhancing overall customer satisfaction through reliable product performance.

  Responsibilities

  • Develop and manage requirements for all reactors based on customer specifications, safety regulations, and design and construction codes.
  • Develop and implement processes for validating analysis methodologies.
  • Review and develop guidance and requirements to ensure compliance with ASME and other applicable design codes.
  • Establish and manage processes for design reviews, including documenting feedback, managing open actions, and tracking unverified assumptions.
  • Conduct reliability analyses and risk assessments during product design and development phases.
  • Collaborate with design engineers to incorporate reliability and quality considerations into new product designs.
  • Identify failure modes and mechanisms, and drive root-cause analyses and corrective action plans.
  • Work closely with cross-functional teams, including design, analysis, manufacturing, quality assurance, and others to establish scalable design processes.

  Qualifications

  • Bachelor's degree in Engineering (Mechanical, Electrical, Aerospace, or related discipline).
  • 4+ years of experience, preferably in a design or product development environment.

  Skills

  • Master's degree in Engineering (preferred).
  • Strong knowledge of reliability principles, methodologies, and testing techniques.
  • Familiarity with ASME codes and standards.
  • Familiarity with FMEA, FMECA, or other failure mode analysis tools.
  • Proficiency in reliability software tools and statistical analysis packages (e.g., Weibull analysis, Minitab).
  • Experience working within regulated industries (e.g., nuclear, automotive, aerospace, medical devices) is desirable.
  • Excellent problem-solving and analytical skills.
  • Ability to communicate effectively with technical and non-technical teams.

  Additional Requirements

  • Ability to work long hours and weekends as necessary to support critical milestones.
  • Ability to travel to customer and mission-relevant locations as needed.
  • Ability to obtain a Top Secret or Top Secret SCI clearance.
  But we said we prefer few sections; maybe combine Additional Requirements into Qualifications or Skills? However Additional Requirements are distinct (work hours, travel, clearance). Could be part of Qualifications. But we already have Qualifications and Skills sections; we could add a third section for Additional Requirements. That's okay. But we might combine Additional Requirements into Qualifications as extra bullet points. However the instruction: "Prefer a few substantive sections over many thin ones." Having many sections may be thin. We have 8 sections; maybe too many. Could reduce: combine Qualifications and Skills into one "Qualifications & Skills" section. Additional Requirements could go under that as well. Culture separate. Pay separate. Location separate. About Us and About the Role separate. Let's think: The instruction list of examples includes Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule. They didn't list Additional Requirements or Culture. But we can still include them if substantive. However we should aim for few substantive sections. Could we merge Additional Requirements into Qualifications? Yes. Culture: could be its own section; it's substantive. Thus sections: About Us, About the Role, Responsibilities, Qualifications & Skills, Culture, Pay, Location. That's 7 sections. Let's craft Qualifications & Skills: include Basic Qualifications bullet list and Preferred Skills & Experience bullet list (including Master's degree etc). Also Additional Requirements bullet list could be included there as well. But we need to avoid too thin; but it's okay. Let's produce:

  About Us

  ...

  About the Role

  ...

  Responsibilities

  ...

  Qualifications & Skills

  • Bachelor's degree in Engineering (Mechanical, Electrical, Aerospace, or related discipline).
  • 4+ years of experience, preferably in a design or product development environment.
  • Master's degree in Engineering (preferred).
  • Strong knowledge of reliability principles, methodologies, and testing techniques.
  • Familiarity with ASME codes and standards.
  • Familiarity with FMEA, FMECA, or other failure mode analysis tools.
  • Proficiency in reliability software tools and statistical analysis packages (e.g., Weibull analysis, Minitab).
  • Experience working within regulated industries (e.g., nuclear, automotive, aerospace, medical devices) is desirable.
  • Excellent problem-solving and analytical skills.
  • Ability to communicate effectively with technical and non-technical teams.
  • Ability to work long hours and weekends as necessary to support critical milestones.
  • Ability to travel to customer and mission-relevant locations as needed.
  • Ability to obtain a Top Secret or Top Secret SCI clearance.

  Culture

  • Think in Systems - Energy and Defense are complex ecosystems with numerous stakeholders with competing priorities, conflicting policies, perverse incentives, and emergent and path-dependent properties. First principles thinking alone is insufficient. Think probabilistically and then take action. “If you want to be certain, then you are apt to be obsolete.” Over-optimizing the components often degrades the system
  • Obsess over the End User - The customer and end user are often not the same. We will never build globally competitive commercial products if we lose sight of our end users and their entire interaction with the product life cycle
  • Be Unconstrained by Convention - Our only limits are the laws of physics. Many, even experts, will say what we are working on is impossible. They said the same about SpaceX reusing rockets. Generationally impactful companies, by definition, must accomplish the seemingly impossible. If it were easy, it would have already been done. Never shy away from a solution because it has never been tried before, and never choose to do something because that's “how it's always been done”
  • Go Where the Work Is - Never miss a chance to meet a customer, user, or stakeholder face to face, even if that means hopping on a plane. If you can’t make it, find a teammate who can channel your intentions and go in your place. Deep work can be done from anywhere, but we believe teams are built in person, and aim to maximize our time together