Towards Abundant Futures

I just completed reading the book Abundance by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson. It struck me as a stimulating work that presents well-thought ideas for needs in innovation, infrastructure, and technology, while also evaluating barriers hindering advancement. (Spoiler: many of these barriers are related to public policy failures or the application of once well-meaning policies that are no longer effective in today's environment.) Justifiably, this book is generating a lot of discussion as a potential public policy framework for the future.

Although Klein and Thompson concentrate on the issues of housing inequality, energy, foundational science, and new inventions, it struck me that the obstacles are quite similar to those encountered in the space and related technology sectors. With strategic priorities, institutions, and roles currently being redefined, it's essential to take a comprehensive view of technology, public policy, and economics to chart the way forward.

Theme Number one: Science and Technology Investments

The most directly relevant theme from the book addresses a strong need for federally-funded science and technology that fosters high-risk and high-reward innovation with mechanisms to move ideas quickly to markets.

Today, there is significant innovation happening in the private sector, particularly in commercial space, aviation, energy, AI, and other digital technologies. However, private sector investment depends on the presence of a viable business case. In contrast, public sector investment is designed to extend beyond immediate market prospects, exploring pre-competitive ideas while assuming more risk. Historically, these strategically focused, taxpayer-funded investments have provided us with many of the breakthroughs that we are leveraging today. Today's policy decisions are not yielding the deliberate balance of investments across academia, government, and industry that will be needed to maintain global competitiveness.

For several years, we've observed a transition of roles from government to industry, especially in space and aviation. This shift can yield positive outcomes if we have thoughtful and deliberate "hand offs" when technologies are ready for practical use. However, without intentional choices, we risk losing essential public-sector capabilities needed to advance areas such as lunar surface infrastructure, deep space exploration, or robotic science missions.

Conversely, it is certainly valid to point to government inefficiency as a factor contributing to the lack of progress in key technologies and innovative approaches. Many would concur that our competitive models for science funding in agencies like NASA, NSF, and others have indeed become overly risk averse. There is also likely widespread agreement that our regulatory frameworks excessively restrict our ability to speed up development cycles. During my NASA career, I often felt frustrated with hiring processes, space act agreements, application of the FAR, IT Security, ITAR, and other policy frameworks that seemed outdated, inefficient, and ultimately constrained our efforts.

Theme Number Two: The Urgent Demand for Energy Solutions and Supporting Infrastructure

There is an obvious and pressing need for clean energy solutions such as solar, wind, and nuclear power, necessitating the development of substantial new infrastructure. The scale of these development needs has only been seen in the United States during periods of significant national crises. Beyond the evident climate emergency we are currently facing, energy demand is set to increase rapidly and exponentially due to AI computing requirements. Failure to meet this demand could very well mean ceding leadership in one of the most crucial technologies in human history to those capable of swift construction and innovation.

Again, the regulatory framework does not allow us to move quickly enough. Even if we can allocate the funding, getting through all of the regulatory hurdles means that projects take years to get beyond the conceptual phase.

We face similar challenges in the space domain with the need to develop and deploy systems more rapidly. We already hear a lot of discussion about ceding leadership in sustainable space infrastructure because of the time it takes to go from concept to operational deployment. (Think: communications, intelligence, microgravity manufacturing, and lunar infrastructure.)

Of course, AI-driven and digitally-connected design, development, testing, evaluation, and operations are also the keys to accelerating cycle times and sustaining strategic leadership.

This all means that acquisition process, regulatory frameworks, systems engineering, risk management, and IT security frameworks need to be re-thought if we are to meet this challenge.

Theme Number Three: Taking Care of People

The final point seems somewhat tangential at first glance, but I think it is directly relevant to building high-performing organizations and attracting talent. The authors examine the crisis around housing that exists in many parts of the country as a result of income-inequality and poor supply.

Organizations are made up of people! If we are going to have an abundant future in space and other technology sectors, we need to attract diverse talents and passions. Many people are already faced with stark choices: migrate to high cost-of-living metro area or deal with living in places where they must give up some rights, privileges, and authenticity. Another concern deals with prospects for career development and mobility in an era where we expect people to be much more agile and flexible as programs and needs come and go. Today's "frozen job market", greatly inhibiting career development and mobility, seems to be a result of tremendous economic uncertainty. Governments must take a role in addressing affordability and equality, while organizations must think about the needs of a diverse talent base.

Where does that leave us?

These are deep structural challenges that require a re-thinking of our political systems, funding priorities, public-private sector roles, and regulatory frameworks. Certainly not easily solved, but people and organizations can consider how to respond to changes and position themselves for success.

We can continue to press for a public policy framework that clearly defines the roles of federal research and development agencies with focused investments in science, technology, and high-risk innovation. That leaves market-ready innovation to the private sector with appropriate incentives.

Companies then need to figure out how to leverage the public-sector investments, perhaps in new kinds of partnerships, while positioning themselves to respond to evolving needs.

Government laboratories must re-think risk, development processes, and science funding models to better reward high-risk and high-payoff development. That also means challenging long-standing frameworks like the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), Information Technology (IT) security requirements, public-partnership agreements, technology licensing, systems engineering, risk management, and many other processes.

It is a great time of change with many opportunities if these challenges can be successfully navigated!