As described by others, I found the interview process rather grueling, but certainly not unfair. First step was an e-mail from a Blue Origin recruiter to set up a time to speak over the phone. Pretty casual question and answer session just to gauge candidate's general interest and enthusiasm for space exploration and general employment experience. That led to an invitation to visit their facility in Kent, WA. and a casual conversation with one of the engineering leads that I might be working for. Again, this was quite casual and another chance for them to see whether they think you would fit in their culture. Next step was a formal interview. This begins with the candidate giving a one hour presentation about previous experience, knowledge and enthusiasm for space flight, technical abilities, etc. My presentation was given in front of 6 people. That was followed by a 1/2 hour 1-on-1 interview with 4 of those 6 people. Not sure if what I describe in the following was intentional or not: it seemed kind of like a "good cop, bad cop" situation. The first person I met with would be described as a potential co-worker as opposed to a manager. Very friendly, a very casual conversation about general interests, what it's like at Blue Origin, etc. Pretty easy, and I was feeling pretty confident. Next person was an engineering team lead. Much more technical conversation, with hypothetical design questions, depth of technical knowledge, specific questions re: GD&T, etc. Third person was actually part of manufacturing. Again, much more casual; he obviously wasn't an engineer, but seemed to be very knowledgeable with some good questions. Following our conversation, he actually told me that he was going to recommend that they bring me on. Fourth person was an engineering hiring manager. VERY thorough. Again, hypothetical design questions, "how would handle conflict" questions, "how would you handle having a decision overruled by a manager" questions, more GD&T questions etc. The term "good cop, bad cop" is obviously an exaggeration, but the "casual", followed by "technical", then "casual", then "technical" again struck me as intentional. While I did find it grueling, I also found their process admirable. They definitely understand how costly it is in the long run to simply fill a position with someone who seems to have the qualifications, only to find out later that they don't fit in with the culture, they don't have good person-to-person skills etc. I am guessing their turnover rate is much lower than many other companies that aren't as thorough.