NASA: Lost At Space
NASA – the actual institution, people, and performance – is at a tipping point. It has an aging infrastructure, a brain drain of talent leaving for new space start-ups, and a fatigued management team trying to balance unrealistic congressional priorities with the realities of sustaining complex systems and people in space.
Rising space adversaries’ recent successes combined with NASA’s delays and missteps, are also straining the fabric of the institution and its limited political capital. This is creating the appearance that NASA is “Lost At Space,” meaning in a place unknown to it before and not knowing what to do next. And, as of the time of the writing of this article, it is leaderless.
Worse, the world is no longer waiting for us. They have new alternative partners. Truly competitive adversaries are rising to challenge America’s leadership in Space – not just the domain but the physical, geographic territory directly within which public and private multi-activity projects occur.
Previously, NASA had things other countries wanted and were willing to wait in line to participate, such as the Space Shuttle, the International Space Station, and even Artemis. We are losing these international space partners ever so quietly in favor of their own alliances and those of our competitors.
The list of agile competitors is growing rapidly – no longer just the Russians. These new challengers, some friends, some foes – China, India, Europe, UAE, Luxemburg, Japan – are directly challenging America’s leadership in science, engineering, and actual in-space operations. They are building and deploying their own space stations, landing with their own systems on the lunar surface, delivered by their own launch capabilities. Whilst NASA remains mired in budget-straining dead-end programs (such as the international space station), dwindling launch options for Artemis, and unbelievably bad publicity.
Example: Artemis – The Sequel. An attempt to achieve a feat that was performed over 50 years ago, Artemis has become the poster child for the agency’s current ills. It’s years behind schedule and ahead only in cost overruns. Artemis is now the symptom of a larger, more immediate institutional problem, for which policymakers, media, think tanks, K Street, and particularly the Trump Administration, seek a cure. A cure for the nation’s premier space institution, which can be deferred no longer.
The institutional cure, however, is not another next-generation government-funded space program. It is reform – driven within the institution with the problem – NASA itself. Reform must be driven by fresh leadership with the political strength to force the changes from within with the support of the political, economic, and popular support from outside the institution. Finally, meaningful reform to save the institution from itself. Yet, as of this article, NASA drifts.
The “what’s wrong with NASA” debate is a DC constant refrain, even a cottage industry – where program by program, policy by policy is examined, questioned, and moved along with a policy shrug resembling an under-performing child in elementary school.
Government, administration and Congress with NASA’s cooperation fuel these follies by ever-shifting program priorities, policies, and budget priorities. Both institutions tolerate underperforming and unaccountable agency leadership and congressional meddling, whilst rewarding and buying loyalty from a coterie of aging aerospace companies used to open-ended, decades-long agency contracts. NASA’s rinse-and-repeat leadership cadre is central to these terrible results, primarily the Office of the Administrator. Chief amongst all space executives globally, the NASA Administrator’s professional experience reflects its achievements and problems – mostly aerospace executives, engineers, military retirees, scientists, and more recently, politicians with previous oversight responsibilities of the agency. Executives, Yes. Business executives, sadly No. Leaders? Yes, but in a direction provided, not necessarily one developed by them. Directionless.
The withdrawal of Jared Isaacman’s nomination may indicate that real reform is coming or once again deferred. Isaacman is a business entrepreneur and a builder of companies. He knows what a balance sheet is, where capital comes from, how to hire and motivate people, and how to meet the expectations of his investors. He is also more than a successful businessperson. He is recognized by our country’s most youthful, aspirational sector as a leader in the New Space sector. The fact that he has actually been to and experienced human space flight puts him in a unique category. One of credibility.
Isaacman said he still believes, as a New Space entrepreneur, in the potential future of NASA. He would have represented a convergence of the past and the future needed to create a true American Century of expansion into Space. Finally, he can speak to Wall Street and Silicon Valley with credibility few have. He is well-respected amongst
