1.2 Who? (Major Players)

Since the origin of spacecraft technology, the government has had a huge role in funding technological progress for immense nation-scale endeavors. The US government controls NASA centers, government labs (civil and defense), and in part, federally funded research and development centers (FFRDCs). The other entities that exist in the aerospace sector include academic institutions and privately owned businesses.

NASA has ten centers distributed across the US to execute NASA’s programmatic vision. The earliest centers were born from aeronautical research, like Langley Research Center, Ames Research Center, John Glenn Research Center, and Armstrong Flight Research Center. Briefly mentioned in the history section, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory was started by a group of Caltech students and initially funded by the Army to continue their rocket research. The Marshall Space Flight Center was also initially funded by the Army under the name of Redstone Arsenal. Upon the creation of NASA, these centers were absorbed into NASA. NASA created the Goddard Space Flight Center, Stennis Space Center, Johnson Space Center, and Kennedy Space Center. The larger organization also controls minor facilities, like the Wallops Flight Facility, Deep Space Network, White Sands Test Facility, and the Infrared Telescope Facility. These centers interact the most with spacecraft (before, during, and after launch), manage large contracts, and conduct some in-house research. These centers include mission control centers, launch facilities, huge experiment testbeds, and clean rooms.

Government agencies outside of NASA include a suite of federally funded research and development centers (FFRDCs), military research centers, and intelligence agencies Department of Defense, National Reconnaissance Office, National Oceanic, and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Energy, Federal Aviation Administration, National Science Foundation, Federal Communications Commission, United States Geological Survey [the balance]. FFRDCs are “public-private partnerships which conduct research for the United States Government”, like Sandia Labs, MIT Lincoln Labs, Lawrence Livermore. Their involvement with space missions differs from NASA due to their more limited involvement, developing technologies or subsystems without integrating the whole system. Department of Defense labs “are the foundation for research to support our nation’s defense”; the most pertinent labs that do aerospace research are the Air Force Office of Science Research, Air Force Research Lab, Naval Research Lab. (Who knows what’s going to happen with the Space Force?) Although the DoD does fund research toward science objectives, the space missions are more focused on defense applications and employers may require varying levels of security clearance. Intelligence agencies include the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, and National Security Agency. The general sentiment of defense and intelligence agencies is that they are well-funded and can progress technologies more aggressively. An example of this gap in advancement is NRO’s donation of Hubble-quality telescopes to NASA in 2012. The general word-of-mouth without definitive validation is that the defense side of aerospace is at least a decade ahead of civilian aerospace (NASA).

The role of academic institutions is to educate/train an aerospace workforce and conduct research. Aerospace engineering as a field of study was first formalized in 1914 at the University of Michigan. Much of the aerospace engineering curriculum overlaps with the mechanical engineering curriculum; “aerospace engineering is just high-speed, variable-pressure, safety-critical mechanical engineering”. From the most recent US News ranking, only 65 universities in the US list aerospace programs, which include sub-space. There are 637 ABET-accredited US universities. In that intersection, 10 percent of ABET schools have aerospace programs. Many states (24 out of 52 states and territories) do not have an aerospace program in their state. With the rise in digital platforms, there are several online courses or video series that delve into aerospace engineering. Academic institutions do not have as advanced facilities but retain experts in research fields that mature technology and science at a more basic, foundational level. Work is done at the university rarely sees spaceflight, as much work is needed to mature technologies beyond basic research, but university small satellite teams are ever more prevalent, some of which do successfully reach space.

Aerospace businesses often act as contractors or tiered levels of subcontractors, where some larger businesses subcontract to smaller businesses. These contracted activities include products with established processes and rarely include research, although some large companies host research and development groups. The commercial sector of the aerospace industry is the most volatile sector over time as the companies are heavily subject to economic winds. This volatility is characterized by waves of company creation during wartime and economic prosperity, then a succession of mergers during economic depressions, like any industry.

American aerospace businesses began as aeronautical businesses, originating from the Wright brothers’ licensing to companies to build their airplanes. The title of the first aerospace business is debatable, but a list of the first companies that have persisted over time are Gallaudet (the ancestor of General Dynamics), Burgess Company and Curtiss, Thomas Brothers, Loening Aeronautical, Aeromarine Plane and Motor Company, Glenn Martin Company, L-W-F Company (Lowe, Willard & Fowler Engineering Company), Boeing, and Loughead (Lockheed) [US Centennial of Flight Commission]. These companies boomed during World War II built upon the VJ Day resolution, but after the military canceled all orders on aircraft, some aircraft companies tanked [Bugos]. Aerospace companies had to adapt to the technological advances in World War II and the needs of the Cold War, such as long-range strategic bombers (Boeing B-47), high-speed high altitude experimental aircraft (Bell X-1), guided missiles (Raytheon, Sperry, and Hughes), and jet engines (McDonnell Aircraft and Lockheed). The Aerospace Corporation, Space Technology Laboratories of TRW Inc., and Lockheed Missiles and Space dominated the ICBM programs. After the Cold War, the US Congress significantly decreased defense spending, leading to many great aerospace business mergers, particularly in the 1990s. The “Great Merge” produced what is colloquially called the “Big Five” now: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, Honeywell, and Northrop Grumman. The modern aerospace business zeitgeist has been coined, NewSpace, likely inspired by the Silicon Valley startup culture, billionaire philanthropists, and monotonically decreasing low barriers to space. Of the current players, the biggest private companies are XPrize, Bigelow, Virgin Galactic, Blue Origin, United Launch Alliance, and SpaceX. A majority of these businesses focus on getting people and spacecraft into space, but notable satellite or technology companies include Planet Labs, Made in Space, Paragon, Tethers Unlimited, and Honeybee Robotics.

In 2020, the DoD received 14.1 billion USD to invest specifically in the space domain and NASA as a whole received 22.6 billion USD. In 2018, Aerospace Corporation estimated that the US industry output for space systems totaled 39 billion USD and provided 148,700 jobs [2019 Facts and Figures]. Nearly all funding for these three sectors (government labs, academia, and private businesses) derives their funding from taxpayer dollars, typically funneled through NASA and the DoD. Some aerospace companies bring in revenue by selling satellite data (Planet Labs), relaying communications (DirecTV), or exporting parts (Arconic). Most aerospace jobs still reside in manufacturing with the least common aerospace job in research [US Bureau of Labor Statistics].

To navigate your career in aerospace, my advisor once said that the most influence/power flows down from the government to academia and government labs, and finally to the different levels of contractors. Mobility in career follows the same trajectory in which an initial career in the government will set up more opportunities to work in a government lab or contractor; valid for any other institution upstream moving downstream. The institutions downstream want to know how funding decisions are made upstream so that they can secure the largest chunk of money flowing down the tiers. Outside of a pure government job, the same direction of flow holds for researchers pursuing basic research moving more easily into more applied research. Unfortunately, the money flows in the opposite direction; contractors get paid the most and government employees the least. If you’re curious, like me, about the experience in each type of institution or want to have the most options open through your career, aim upstream while you are young and presumably don’t need the money as much.