Agent of Change: Lori Garver Details Modernizing NASA

NASA has transformed the way it works with commercial space companies in recent years, and there is no better example than SpaceX’s historic first crewed flight to the International Space Station in 2020. It took years of work behind the scenes to drive changes in how the agency works, and Lori Garver, former deputy NASA administrator, helped spearhead that evolution.

In this interview, Via Satellite talks with Garver about her recently published book “Escaping Gravity: My Quest to Transform NASA and Launch a New Space Age,” which describes her experience advocating for change, the pushback she received, and what still needs to be done.

VIA SATELLITE: You describe how many people took issue with your policy background versus a technical background, especially when you were deputy administrator of NASA. Did you have to overcome any doubt within yourself that you should have a place at the table, and how did you overcome doubt among others?

Garver: I had impostor syndrome, and in my day, we didn't know what it was called. But I clearly was willing to take on jobs anyway. When I was asked to apply for the National Space Society executive director, that was my first big jump. But I had worked really closely with the executive director and I knew what the job was and at my core, I felt I could do it. Coming back to NASA, I had spent five years on the ninth floor, I had seen Administrator Dan Goldin do his job. I felt like chief of staff was probably the most senior position at NASA that I could get. But I put down “deputy,” because my dad had said you should try for a rung higher than you think you can get.

When your views are being discounted, you never know what the reason is, when those views are going up against people who have entrenched self interests. I was easier to attack because the Administrator [Charles Bolden] was an astronaut, and a Marine general, and not as visibly advocating for the [Commercial Crew] program. I definitely felt insecure at times in my career, because I recognized those credentials would have helped people give my views more credibility. But never did I ever have anything come to pass like, ‘Should we change this APU or not?’ Turns out, that doesn't come up on the ninth floor.

VIA SATELLITE: There were many twists and turns to get Commercial Crew funding approved. How close do you think Commercial Crew came to not being funded?

Garver: It's really hard to know. I think had we lost, it would have just been delayed, not canceled. But you just never know, because timing is everything. The people fighting on the other side knew that another year delay would make it even harder to get it passed. We're seeing this now — how long are we going to have the Space Station? Because there was no point to having the Commercial Crew [program] without a Space Station, it was a very interconnected web. Easily, something like the decision not to continue with Space Act Agreements for that second round, could have killed the program just by [going only with] Boeing. Look at where we are now, if we didn't have our own access to the Space Station when Russia invaded Ukraine. Ultimately, I feel that we were going to transition astronaut transportation to the private sector.

VIA SATELLITE: Do you think that NASA has fully embraced the better, faster, cheaper, mindset of working with commercial companies that you championed?

Garver: No, I do not. I think a lot of people have. Better, faster, cheaper — you can’t have all three. As I say in the book, SpaceX has proven that can happen, but it is rare. Typically, something is maybe two of them. There isn’t some [policy] that says [NASA won’t] do cost-plus contracts for human spaceflight in the future. As I say in the book, escaping gravity isn't going to happen perfectly every time. If we lose people on Commercial Crew in one of these first years, there will be a lot of introspection about that.

VIA SATELLITE: You were very open about the ways in which people fell short, and what you call “dark matter,” or self-dealing. Why was it important to you to be clear about those things? Did you have any hesitation or misgivings about how honest you were?

Garver: I definitely did. There are versions that are less honest and direct, and there are versions that are more. Some things were modified to keep me from being as legally exposed. You can’t claim a crime was committed. Clearly, some of these things [in the book] are unethical.

For me, it's just part of the story. [In order to] do important things in our government better, you have to say what has to change. I did have some very important mentors of mine say ‘Don't do this,’ that I would be shunned by the space community. Before the book came out, I had a lot of sleepless nights because this is an industry that I care about. For me, it's like if you had an alcoholic spouse or loved one, you don't just serve them drinks and enjoy the good times. You work toward getting them better. I feel that NASA deserves getting better, and that means rooting out some of this corruption and self-dealing. For the most part, it really is systematic. It's not like there's some horrible person, and I didn't get personal in any way. The hardest part was figuring out how to tell the story in a way that could help us fix the systemic problems and highlight that NASA has done a very noble job of doing that when it's hard to do. But there's still work ahead.

VIA SATELLITE: What are you most proud of from your time at NASA?

Garver: Being an agent for change that actually got some things accomplished. Even in the ‘90s, Dan Goldin instilled a lot of things that continued, but the barnacles built up again. Commercial Crew is the easy answer, but it is about more than that — it is about trying to bring a government agency into the 21st century. I ran at all kinds of things, many of them aren't in the book. When I came to NASA, the agency didn't want to use the cloud. [I worked at] limiting our ‘90 servers, and getting our Freedom of Information Act response time down to something reasonable. I was proud of having more women and minorities in leadership positions. Those things have all continued, which is wonderful.

VIA SATELLITE: In the 2000s, SpaceX was a disruptor, trying to prove itself for the government contracts. But now, everybody is working with or wants to work with SpaceX. Do you think SpaceX has become the establishment because of how big their impact is on the space industry?

Garver: I wouldn't say they are the establishment, but they are definitely the company to beat, which has a bit of that connotation. They have successfully disrupted the industry. There is no going back. Everybody in the private sector and the government is trying to figure out the secret sauce to be able to have competitions that are as successful in creating a service that will lower the cost to the government and increase the capability. It’s become a virtuous cycle of reduced costs for satellites, facilitated by lower launch cost, but it's also helped lower launch costs. The magnitude of their first 20 years of impact on the community has been unprecedented. Now, they're not only launching all the satellites, but building them. If Starship becomes operational, it will be revolutionary. I don't think people are really accepting the magnitude of the change that will bring. SpaceX is continuing to be disruptive, and they aren't resting on their laurels.

VIA SATELLITE: You tell the story of writing NASA’s mission statement and how you were pushed to think about ‘why’ we go to space. There’s the example of the 2020 Commercial Crew test that happened at the same time as really important protests and sparked discussion about space exploration vs. progress here on Earth. Do you think that the space industry has a ‘why’ problem in showing its value to the public?

Garver: I do, I think that's less important with communication satellites and GPS. But human spaceflight is quite disconnected in the public's view from our current woes and what is the value that it brings. People tend to either support it or not. More males tend to support it, although that is certainly not 100 percent the case. Aside from people who personally want to go [to space] we've gotten a backlash. The billionaire backlash all happened so quickly.

[The public] had no problem paying astronauts to go. But now, if people are going for the fun of it, what were the astronauts doing? Since Apollo, it’s something NASA has taken for granted that we need to fly astronauts, and that should be something the public wants.

VIA SATELLITE: Despite your training in Russia to go to the ISS, you weren't able to go to space at that point. If the opportunity comes up now, would you take it?

Garver: Yes. I didn't grow up wanting to go to space or be an astronaut. Having worked in it now for 35 years, of course I would love to go. I probably will pay to go at some point if my health holds up and if something I invest in makes it big.

But the training was such a unique thing. I was working for Fisk Johnson, it wasn’t about me. We absolutely needed to get somebody in the seat. I really enjoyed the experience, even though it was pretty rough. Getting to go to the Space Station for 10 days — that’s very different from a suborbital, 10-minute flight. I’d love to go to the Space Station for 10 days. I would certainly take a Dragon flight, but I think the costs will be too much. I think my opportunity will be suborbital. My husband and I have signed up for one of the World View balloon trips that go to the stratosphere.

VIA SATELLITE: What are some other instances of space progress on the horizon that you are excited about?

Garver: I'm still really excited about ways we can help here on Earth from space. [This is in] some of the new approaches from the private and nonprofit sector about measuring greenhouse gas emissions, using that data to help people in parts of the world that don't readily have access to that kind of information. The time is now for some really big developments that could be game-changers that for whatever reason, the billionaires aren't focused on, but the government could be. I think NASA has a broader mandate than just sending people to space. NASA has this incredible brand, it's not politicized, it's not partisan. We should use that to get above the fray. I [wrote a] Washington Post op-ed about a NASA Climate Corps where you could work for NASA and be trained on utilizing data in different parts of the world to help society measure and better manage resiliency and mitigation to climate change.

I’m excited about going back to the Moon in a way that utilizes resources there to stay more permanently, with a long-term benefit of moving out in a sustainable way. I really do believe, for our long term survival, that we have to. I don't think we will learn how to survive elsewhere until we've really advanced some technologies a lot farther than now, but that’s no reason not to start.

VIA SATELLITE: There have been a lot of changes in the geopolitical environment with Russia in recent months since you finished the book. Do you think that we are in a new Cold War in space? And do you have concerns about space becoming increasingly militarized?

Garver: We are [in a Cold War] with China now, primarily. We want a competitive advantage in space militarily. We are in a conventional war with Russia in many ways. The China aspect was something that we've foreseen, and NASA has not been in a very cooperative relationship with the Chinese Space Agency. But Russia, we did not foresee, and we had married our space programs. But did it really matter in the big scheme of things? It's certainly not going to keep them from invading Ukraine. NASA has been valuable as a soft power tool, but the militarization of space has been ongoing. Communications, GPS are critical to our military. Is there an escalation? Yes. That’s because we have a foreign actor, who we do not trust, whose motives are very different from ours, who is getting capability. It is an expansion and an extension of what has existed since the beginning. Like we felt with the Cold War, we hope it stays cold.

VIA SATELLITE: You co-founded the Brooke Owens Fellowship, which inspired the Patti Grace Smith Fellowship and Matthew Isakowitz Fellowship, which have all been awesome contributions to support young people in the space industry. Do you think those programs played a role in changing how the space industry accepts and encourages a diverse workforce?

Garver: I think the biggest role that they played is allowing the aerospace industry to embrace something that it didn't know how to do. We used to hear there wasn’t interest among women in being aerospace engineers. Now every company that we've approached wants to be in it, we have a waiting list. I cannot say enough good things about the community embracing having these interns. 20 years ago, there was no way we could have done a program like this because there weren't enough space companies. Now there are so many different places you can work and there's a real need for talent. There's so much goodness that has come out of these programs it's hard to even articulate.

We just had our first face-to-face summit in Washington for the Brookies and the Pattis. The mentors write to me and talk to me afterwards saying, ‘I get more out of this than they do.’ I knew we needed it, and I knew there weren't enough early hires with diverse backgrounds. We ended up coming at a time when there was a need in all areas, and people have embraced it.

VIA SATELLITE: It sounds like the space industry has changed a lot in terms of diversity from when you were coming up. How far does it still have to go? What are the problems that you're still seeing?

Garver: As I say, in the book, Sally Ride’s quest was harder than mine, but she'd be the first one to acknowledge that the brush is not yet cleared. I acknowledge that today as well. We are still having problems directly with harassment and discrimination. We are having growing pains of maybe the first time you're having someone who looks or acts [different from you] in your company. But you have to be in the game to win, and now people are getting a better sense of how behaviors need to change. I've had to call a couple of companies to say ‘No, these things aren't appropriate.’

My concern continues to be that we be more accepting and inclusive, but also that people are promoted in a way that isn't just reflective of the current leadership. We know we all have these unintended biases. I had a Brookie come up to me at the summit and say that she really wanted to have my career, and her goal is to be deputy administrator of NASA. I just said, ‘It should be the administrator of NASA.’ There’s a hall at NASA [with] the administrators' portraits and the deputy administrators' portraits. There are four [portraits] of women at the end of deputy administrator, but none on the administrator side.

Leadership and role models really do matter. We have several aerospace companies with female leaders and as that becomes more the norm, we do bring an outlook and perspective that is unique. I continue to be disappointed that we don't have a female NASA administrator, but I can't believe the next one won't be. There's just so many qualified women out there.

VIA SATELLITE: What do you think are some of the other large challenges facing the space industry today?

Garver: The most important one to me is being more purpose-driven, instead of doing the things we've always done. I know that's allowed a lot of companies to remain profitable, but we are going to need to be more directly responsive to the needs of the nation and provide services, hardware, and programs that are more relevant. I think as we get more efficient, we need to tell that story and be less defensive and reactionary to criticism. We should be 100 percent transparent on the civil side.

On the commercial side, there’s still a lot of questions. I [was recently asked why] SpaceX took all these subsidies and now Elon Musk is against subsidies. Let’s separate contracts from subsidies. People on the left, who I resonate with on so many issues, have a misunderstanding about how we are saving taxpayer money by being more efficient by working with these companies. It is not a subsidy, it is the opposite. We are helping our industry be more competitive, which is good for the United States. We are winning back market share, which is good for the United States for the launch market. We are driving innovation and technologies that are absolutely critical to the nation.

I don't know that that's really the government's responsibility. But NASA gets a lot of credit for starting this, so it probably should be able to explain it better. We're still pushing SLS and Orion — the old way of doing things — in this administration, as well as the last. That remains to be seen if that's sustainable. There's a bad day to come when people realize we've been putting all this money in and competing with our own industry. VS

Correction: A previous version of this story misspelled former NASA Administrator Dan Goldin's last name.