Over the half century of its existence, NASA has continued to evolve and adapt, passing through different phases along the way. While NASA has always worked toward international cooperation, budget issues and increasing competition with other countries have forced the once-insular NASA to look increasingly outward. Space, which has become a robust commercial sphere of activity is one place wherein cooperation is welcome. The new technologies and cultural mindsets NASA engages with through outside partners has led to a internal reinvention of sorts.
NASA has developed tools deeply beneficial to society – satellite-based search-and-rescue, water filtration systems, UV coating on glasses, and many others – some known, many unknown behind the scenes. While previously known for internal development of missions, budget cuts and newfound competition for space dominance has forced a pivot in the focus toward innovation, agility, and collaboration. The commercial space sector has aimed for low orbit activities, leaving NASA to seek out the exploration of deep(er) space. NASA also needs to rely on technological innovation emerging from commercial space to conduct deep space missions.
To compete during the earliest part of the Cold War, there were minimal external collaborators consisting almost exclusively of Western power allies (Canada, Europe). Space technology was new for everyone, was growing fast, and required specialized contractors to help carry the load. NASA would then own the technology since there was no need to purchase it off an open market – since NASA *was* the market. The military origins of NASA meant that the government alone was responsible for funding. None the less, NASA managed to attract the brightest minds to work on its exciting missions. That said, the specificity of contracts and control NASA had over what the contractors did created the insular atmosphere of the first phase. NASA was a walled garden, to borrow a current phrase – one wherein unprecedented technological capability was nurtured.
Next came the “transitional phase” of NASA. Creating the International Space Station (ISS) was, as the name suggests, an “international” task. NASA became a part of a whole, rather than an entity that created contracts and controlled their output. They were among the European Space Agency (ESA), the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), the Canadian Space Agency (CSA), and eventually Roscosmos. NASA could not build the project on their own and was under a tighter budgetary belt than it was during the Cold War. NASA was no longer in a space race to be won at any cost. NASA had to trim the fat and begin to show that its activities provided value not only to NASA but to the tax paying public.
The “network model”, the current model NASA finds itself within, came to be after the retirement of the Space Shuttle. Commercial interest in space from both the government and private companies encouraged NASA to look for outside help. It was becoming increasingly obvious that commercial space transportation could do what NASA did – but do so much more cheaply. NASA no longer has an exclusivity with regard to the technology it uses to reach space. Rather, they now leverage their goals using their partners’ capabilities and the cost burden is shared. The private sector has a shared interest in developing the technology in space. Everyone benefits – even if their goals are not exactly the same. With the retirement of the Space Shuttle, Space X and Orbital Sciences were the two contractors that won contracts to ferry cargo to and from the ISS for NASA on a commercial basis.
The notion of NASA as a brand has shifted dramatically from the Apollo days. Gone are the days of a global space race wherein endless deep pockets and blank checks were common. NASA now increasingly crowdsources ideas from outside. NASA is also developing a more mature and flexible understanding of its role in a global market wherein domestic/international and government/commercial relationships are the norm. As the government focuses NASA toward deep space exploration, an evolving, new structure of NASA will require much more cooperation and flexibility within and outside of NASA. As such, a continuous reinvention of how NASA does things is required.
The world view that spawned NASA during the Cold War was characterized by an inward focused military/industrial organization – one of two global players – in a politically bipolar world. NASA now finds itself as one space agency of many, with private and commercial players often equipped with financial and technological resources of their own that are on a par with NASA’s. In many cases NASA now sees the need to catch up with the pace of space technology development in addition to helping to drive it.
The “space race” of the 21st century now has dozens – perhaps hundreds – of players. With that comes the need for a totally different way of looking at collaboration, as well as competition.
