In 1995, deep in post-Soviet Russia at RSC Energia in Korolev, a 28-year-old NASA engineer (me) faced off against a grizzled senior manager who embodied the old Soviet ways. We were moments from signing a protocol during our quarterly meeting on the $400M NASA-Russia Space Station contract, when he launched into a lecture: why NASA’s demand for detailed design docs on a pure oxygen pump was misguided—and why tough test requirements and full contractor accountability were superior.

He refused to share heat treatment details, arguing that he didn't have the information and didn't want it, preferring test data. NASA culture wanted both detailed design information and test data.

This clash revealed deep cultural differences: Soviet-era secrecy for power and survival vs. NASA’s multi-layered oversight born from hard-learned failures in spaceflight physics.

Frankly, I agreed with his view - but it was my job to get the data.

Years later, SpaceX launched with a philosophy closer to that Russian ideal—fixed-price contracts, arm's-length from NASA processes, emphasizing owner accountability and rapid iteration. But as challenges mounted (schedule slips, costs), they didn't reject NASA wholesale. They learned, selectively adopted proven elements, and evolved into something more effective—proving hybrid approaches win.

NASA's legacy is real: every "ridiculous" requirement has a story, often from missions that failed spectacularly due to counterintuitive risks. Jared Isaacman's challenge is to reinvent NASA, pulling the best from that past into a new culture or excellence.

Join me for this personal story from the front lines of ISS collaboration, reflections on engineering culture, and why true progress comes from blending the best of bureaucratic wisdom and bold innovation.

👍 Like to hear more insider stories

🔔 Subscribe for weekly deep dives on technology, economy, and policy intersections

💬 Comment: What do you think—does accountability win, or is deep oversight essential in space?