The Mission and the Corporation

When the United States made a full-blown effort in the 1960s to land humans on the moon and return them safely, with the end of the 60s being a self-imposed deadline, it was a mission requiring the devoted, self-sacrificial efforts of great minds and talents. The watchwords for this project could have been “only the best”. Scientists, engineers, astronauts, assemblers, and technicians were all to be the absolute best in their fields, for the success of the mission outweighed everything else. There was a sense among those involved that everyone had an indispensable role that contributed to the mission’s realization. And indispensable they were, looking back on the successful landing and return of Apollo 11 in July, 1969 and the gargantuan leaps in science and engineering required to reach this goal.

Since that era, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration had become more of a corporation in its organization than the facilitator of an ambitious mission. And in the business world, part of the philosophy is to structure one’s company so that, whether one speaks of its capital, its labor force, or even its product lineup, the elements thereof must be replaceable, or modular in nature, in order to insure the smooth continuous operation of the business in the midst of expected changes in those areas. In other words, corporations are structured with the rule that those employed by it are dispensable! This is the diametrically opposite sense from the view projected toward and held by the original Mercury-Gemini-Apollo mission workers! It’s not enough for today’s NASA executives to tack up a plaque on the wall or put something on a website giving an obligatory “mission statement”: the real mission of NASA nowadays is its self-perpetuation. Its scientists, engineers, technicians, and laborers are all expendable and replaceable as a deliberate corporate policy. But even worse than this, I believe that it regards specific missions as dispensable, temporary means to justify its own continuance as an organization. So, instead of having an organization established to coordinate the implementation of approved missions, we have now missions established to serve the purpose of serving the organization. The Hubble Telescope, satellites, planetary probes, special missions to asteroids and comets, the Space Shuttle, the Space Station, an envisioned return to the Moon, and an eventual manned trip to Mars are all examples of missions that NASA uses to justify its own existence. But I don’t think it’s in such a big hurry to bring them into fruition, do you? Just like a big corporation that plans the introduction of innovative products into the consumer world in a gradual, piecemeal manner, so NASA has now become an organization that’s always got something new going on to tease the public. But seen with greater scrutiny, their big accomplishments don’t seem to be serving a greater mission.

Now, NASA may think of itself as being like a corporation, but its income depends not upon the marketplace, but rather funding through Congress. And its decisions as to what kind of product it puts out, likewise, don’t depend on the marketplace, but rather on what the Executive Branch (and ultimately, the President) mandate for it. So, as a people, it’s up to us to come to a sense of collective understanding as to where we really want our space program to go and to hold our representatives accountable for implementing it. Conversely, as leaders, our elected officials can play a role by presenting visions of the future in space that can inspire us to support their efforts in bringing them about.