Who Moved Our Cheese?
If you haven’t read “Who Moved My Cheese?” this might be a good time to go pick up a copy or steal one from your neighborhood “change and transition” specialist. It’s the story of two mice (named “Sniff” and “Scurry”) and two ‘Littlepeople’ (named “Hem” and “Haw”) who are beings who are as small as mice but who “looked and acted a lot like people today.”
The four are in search of cheese in a maze. Don’t ask why these “Littlepeople” don’t have access to alternative means of sustenance like water, tacos, or Snickers bars. Or why they’re the size of mice. They’re stuck in a maze and they just want cheese. (You wouldn’t crave a block of meuster if you were 5 inches tall and confined to a labyrinth of hallways with only mice as company?).
Anyway, the two mice and two Littlepeople find a supply of cheese in the maze and get fat and happy and then the cheese supply vanishes and they are forced to deal with the changed access-to-cheese situation. I won’t spoil the story (it’ll take you 45 minutes to read), but the gist is that there are four types of people when it comes to change: 1) people who “scurry” to get things done no matter what the situation and adapt quickly and aggressively to change; 2) people who “sniff” out change and are perceptive to warning signs to see it coming, thereby positioning themselves to adapt; 3) people who “haw” and fear any change to their comfortable routines but ultimately learn to laugh at their fears and adapt; and 4) people who “hem” themselves into stubborn routines, resisting any change to their habits or behaviors, even when it is clear the only way to survive is to change.
The paradigm in space is clearly changing. Our cheese has been moved. Even if a strong resistance from Congress saves the Constellation Program, the writing on the wall is clear: change or cease to exist.
The cheese is moving, but what cheese are we talking about here?
Is the administration saying that the “cheese” is the ability to put people into space and that NASA, with its 50 years of spaceflight heritage and founding principles built around ensuring safe access to space for human space explorers, is hemmed into a stubborn routine incapable of change?
Is the message that the values and technical competency of our workforce are no match for the new, nimble players in the completely unproven commercial spaceflight sector—or the minds of competing nations like Russia, China and soon to be India?
While I consider myself a “sniff”, at least occasionally perceptive to change and willing to adapt to search for new cheese if that’s what’s needed, something doesn’t sit right with me here. Maybe I’m actually a “haw” who fears change because it threatens my routine of assumptions about NASA’s purpose, competence and value to the nation…
But isn’t looking for new cheese what NASA’s all about?! It’s in our very charter! Our existence is a bold statement by this country and humanity itself that we are not content to sit back, get fat, and accept the world as it is in spite of overwhelming bureaucratic and technical hurdles, or the cynics who label such endeavors as “impossible”. We will not rest on our laurels, nor stand on the edge of a frontier and shy away from the unknown.
The very thought of complacency should strike deep, bone-chilling fear into the hearts and minds of those whose passion is Exploration. NASA stands for the highest standards of integrity, discipline, responsibility and technical excellence and our existence is an example of the best of what our species is capable of.
So while the space access swiss may be moving, don’t tell me the exploration Monterey Jack is moving too and that our values—those same bedrock principles that formed this nation and still represent the enduring nature of the human spirit—don’t tell me those are all of a sudden obsolete or worse, irrelevant.
Don’t tell me that NASA is dead, that our role is to play second fiddle to other nations and companies whose ambitions are greater, whose resolve stronger, whose leadership better adapted to change.
Don’t tell me its acceptable to stand on a new frontier and choose to back away.
No, NASA represents something rare and very much relevant for us now and in the future. We represent change itself. We represent that bold proclamation to the universe that we cannot stand on the edge of a frontier and not act. We will seek new horizons and in doing so, we will lift up the human race.
If we lose that, we’re doing future generations a grave injustice.
If we can build on that unrelenting resolve that Exploration is itself an act of searching for new cheese, we just might stand on the shoulders of giants, and see new light.
And so, I don’t like giving up our commitment to create what was billed as the ‘exploration infrastructure’ of the future. But I’m behind this new search for new cheese ONLY if it truly frees us up to do more of what we were created to do—explore, explore, explore. I think it will and I’m going to help make it happen.
Because the cheese that’s moving isn’t just a destination, like that pie in the sky we once visited many, many years ago. The real cheese that’s moving is our reliance on “old, moldly cheese”. It’s the inability to change that put us in this situation. And if this change brings about a renewed culture which takes along with it the best of what made us great and creates a new atmosphere of innovation and discovery, built around the ability to never stop looking for that new cheese, what could be more in line with the spirit of exploration than that?
So if we’re really going to abandon this stinky limburger for a fancy gold palate assortment of bries, cheddars, provolones, and colbys, we’d better remember that it’s the act of finding new cheese that we’re all about in the first place.
The best laid schemes
O’ mice and men
Often go astray.
Robert Burns
16 Responses to “Who Moved Our Cheese?”
Leave a Reply
Anonymous on February 4th, 2010
It’s for you Garret.
You (and the book) forgot about the fifth type of person: the government bureaucrat. People who confiscate cheese from other people. This is certainly not “the best of our species.”
This new “bold” approach for NASA is no different than the last one. Neither is “commercial” because they are both funded by confiscated property: taxes.
True commercial spaceflight will pay for itself by providing value to its customers. If you would like to be a real explorer, put down your gun and join a real commercial enterprise — there are several breaking new ground.
Enjoy my cheese.
Michael on February 4th, 2010
Excellent Post.
Michael on February 4th, 2010
Well done.
Tim846 on February 4th, 2010
GREAT post! “Who moved my cheese?” is a fantastic story to get the aerospace workforce to think about what is next–no matter what that is.
I see a lot of people posting angry, hurt, scared, and snarky comments about the new plans. I remember many of those same types of comments being made about Constellation when it was announced in 2004!
I think this new direction refines the core strategy that was in the background of the Constellation plan all along: create a fleet of robust modern vehicles able to support a multitude of missions while developing and testing technologies that will enable long-term living off of planet Earth.
The first iteration of that vision was a NASA-centric strategy that very much aligned with the past 50 years of spaceflight. The new plan of relying on more commercial interests is a bold step toward maturing our entire aerospace industry into a modern, competitive marketplace.
There is still a place for NASA to be the innovation leader and expert on exploration systems. Perhaps NASA will find renewed purpose in mentoring and coaching these commercial companies instead of still trying to be the star quarterback in every game.
PS – There is also a short promo vid for the cheese movie that is cute: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C0M2CL9TJE
gfitz on February 4th, 2010
Anonymous, glad you’ve got an affinity for cheese as well, but I think you missed the point. Spaceflight is hard and NASA can and will help emerging commercial companies learn to navigate it safely. That’s our responsibility and that’s a public service. There is no market for true exploration yet so that duty falls to the government as well, like it or not, and yes, your tax dollars. And I’m definitely not holding any guns.
Tim, good thoughts. I hope NASA can find renewed purpose as a leader and a coach, as long as we don’t lose sight of why we were created- exploration. I’m not sure if this new vision is what will get us closer to that, but if it shakes things up and gets people to keep looking ahead, at change and at new approaches, then I think its a good thing. It’s always easier to look at change and react negatively; takes a little more courage to always look for the positive, and I think that’s what makes all the difference.
Garret
Anonymous on February 4th, 2010
Garret,
Why do you think NASA has something to teach private companies about manned spacecraft design or economical operation? NASA hasn’t done the former in over 30 years and has never done the latter. Seems like you have it backwards.
How do you determine what the federal government is responsible for? Is everything for which there is no market a responsibility of the federal government?
Finally, you are holding many guns. Or, more accurately, your agents are. Government is the only organization that holds a monopoly on the use of force. I can assure you that when someone doesn’t empty their wallet to pay your salary, guns will show up at the door.
A.
iMensah on February 4th, 2010
Anonymous,
I honestly think NASA has a great deal to teach about manned spacecraft design as NASA is the only entity in the United States to do that successfully multiple times; in fact, besides DOD (who doesn’t share anything with anyone), NASA is the only entity that’s done manned spacecraft design in the U.S. Just look at the shuttle’s track record. What type of vehicle, any type of vehicle, that is as complex as the shuttle with is amazing track record?
I think it’s great that the private sector is finally getting into spaceflight, but it has a long way to go. Much of the research data and design ideas they will be using will be NASA-generated ideas and research data.
Anonymous on February 5th, 2010
lMensah,
I don’t disagree with most of what you said, but I did say design and _economical_ operation. Very few of the current cadre at NASA know anything about manned spacecraft design as they weren’t even born the last time it was done. And as far as economical operation, well, that’s self evidently missing.
Bottom line is that the private sector doesn’t have any farther to go than NASA does. In fact, they might be closer as they don’t have to un-learn bad habits.
Justin,
MOD has a very narrow expertise: shuttle operations. Expensive shuttle operations. In fact, much of how MOD does business today is what needs to be un-learned as it is not sustainable.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s not the people involved that are lacking — they are some of the most capable people on the planet. It’s the organizational structure that is flawed. The private sector will always out-perform the public sector in value creation.
A.
iMensah on February 4th, 2010
By the way, Garret, great post. I love that book; it’s rather appropriate for now. Manned spaceflight in the U.S. isn’t dead, it’s just growing up.
Justin on February 4th, 2010
There’s also the fact that MOD has the only expertise in launch, ascent, and reentry operations outside of Star City. Building a relationship between them and commercial space will be a key path to success for this endeavor.
Rolando Quintanilla on February 5th, 2010
Garret,
I really like your Cheese analogy. Great post.
gfitz on February 5th, 2010
Anonymous, I’m sorry you’re not happy with the way your government works. NASA does have a lot of knowledge to share with private companies. How many private companies have launched a man into orbit to date? There’s a lot more to it than spacecraft design. From my narrow window, there’s practical operations, maintenance, emergency scenarios, search and rescue ops concepts, human physiology, thermal modeling, vacuum testing, and not to mention years of experience in advanced materials, EVAs, EVA tools, guidance and navigation, solar power efficiency, structures, docking mechanisms, life support systems, habitation, health monitoring, food preservation, thermal protection systems, pyrotechnics, aerothermal modeling, flight simulations and survival systems. Oh, and that’s all before anything breaks. So throw 50 years of troubleshooting failure investigations in there too. Plus all the operations and training personnel to operate it all and pass along the knowledge to the rest of the workforce. Plus, it all already exists. That’s just scratching the surface.
Also, I’m not determining what the federal gov’t is responsible for- its in NASA’s charter: “The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (as established by title II of this Act) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.” Not everything for which there is no market falls to the responsibility of the gov’t; only those that the people (the American public and their democratically elected officials) feel are important enough to pay for, which still includes space exploration.
And as for the use of force in collecting taxes, I’m not sure this is the right forum for that discussion.
Thanks,
Garret
Anonymous on February 5th, 2010
Garret,
That’s a nice list, but it’s a list of science projects since most are systems that were designed in the 70s, have never flown, are not directly involved in spacecraft design, or are being provided by the Russians or some other non-NASA organization. Furthermore, all these things are really done by NASA contractors.
As far as what determines what the federal government is responsible for, you might want to consider the US Constitution. Specifically, you might want to look at Article 1, Section 8. You’ll note that NASA isn’t in the list.
A.
gfitz on February 5th, 2010
Anonymous,
I understand where you’re coming from. And true, when it comes to new spacecraft, NASA hasn’t designed, built, and flown a new spacecraft in a long time. But neither have any private companies. I’m not so warped to think NASA can solve all the world’s problems in spaceflight- a lot of times it will help to just get out of the way. But there are a ton of smart people at NASA (who wear many different badges) who’ve spent years building up practical knowledge about what it takes to keep people and hardware alive and working in space. It would be a shame not to take advantage of all that knowledge.
cm17,
My point was that this change only makes sense if it really frees NASA up to do more exploration, which is what the agency was founded to do. And if it shakes things up and leads to an organization that’s more adaptable to change and thinking in new ways, that’s a good thing. I share a lot of the same concerns about not having a specific new mission and hope that we’ll get to craft what those specific new missions look like in the coming weeks/months.
Plus, I was hungry at the time.
Garret
ccm17 on February 5th, 2010
So, I am not quite sure what I am supposed to take away from the original post.
Yes, the role of NASA as an operations organization (someone building/operating spacecraft to build the ISS, move crews to and from the ISS, and move supplies to and from the ISS is going away). OK, it is change, and as Bolden pointed out on Wednesday, that was actually the plan in the late 80’s anyway: take NASA out of the “run the thing we built” role and enter the next “build something newer and better role.” OK, fine. I think I can deal with it.
But, being in a position to notice, I think what many NASA people fear most is the fact that Obama has not provided a “newer and better job to do next.”
JFK and LBJ set us off with sending people to the Moon and then bringing them safely back to Earth.
After Apollo, the task was to build a space station and a long term human habitat in space.
After the loss of Columbia, G. W. Bush said let’s move away from our current projects, test out some new equipment on the Moon (preferably in regions humans have not visited before) and then send people to Mars, study the planet, then bring those people back to Earth. Cool! So we start on that. Sadly, most people want to change the destination or change the designs of the vehicle to go there, but at least we start work and our work is aimed at a goal.
Now Obama says: no Moon, no Mars. Go to your labs and tinker on stuff. Stuff that will someday be useful for some mission to some place at some point in time. But he doesn’t name the place. He doesn’t name the time. He doesn’t name what we will do there. When people ask his appointed staff what the mission is, they either give a non-answer or say they need more time to figure that out. But they know for sure they want to cancel what NASA is working on now.
So now there are a bunch of NASA people wondering what the hell they are supposed to do. They have a directive that says build new and better engines, but they don’t know how big they need to be, how much mass they will need to move, where they will be operating, how long they will need to operate, in what conditions they will need to operate, etc. Should this engine work at sea level, in the upper atmosphere, in deep space, or near a gritty landing spot on some other world, or near an icy landing spot on some other world? Should that engine run on hydrogen (probably not – the DC folks are saying that is too old school for them). OK, how about kerosene like the Russians use for some of their rocket engines, including the one in Atlas V. Is that better? Or how about Methane, which isn’t as efficient, but maybe could be made out of Mars dust, which would be useful if we go to Mars, but we don’t know if we are going to Mars and thus have MArs dust.
Should NASA design new parachutes and heat shields? Well, if NASA was sending people some place with an atmosphere then maybe NASA would do that. But NASA doesn’t know if the goal will be to go someplace with an atmosphere.
It’s hard to believe that Obama has plans to send NASA exploring, when he hasn’t said where he wants NASA (or any private space development company for that matter) to be able to send people (other than ISS, of course).
Yes, many people will be annoyed at the propect at their work getting cancelled before it flies, but those same people might feel better if there was a plan to do something else. Instead, there is no plan for anything else. There is just the promise of cash to spend tinkering on stuff in a lab that might be useful for some project To Be Determined later. We just better hope that all the smart NASA people naturally start building stuff that will be compatible with other people’s stuff and will be useful for the same mission/destination to be named later.
Sadly, after several years around NASA people, I think we can be guaranteed that without a guiding project, the stuff that is developed won’t work together and won’t be suited for the same task. Instead, NASA will be left with a bunch of spare parts that can’t be assembled into anything of substance.
NASA will just be drifting until someone else comes up with a definite mission, gets the funding, and orders NASA to begin exploration in that direction. I hope such a person stands up soon. But, I think many are assuming that it will take at least 3-4 years for that to happen.