How Subsidiarity Got Astronauts Home and Gets the Mail Delivered

Like many Americans, my heart swelled with pride as I watched the astronauts land safely in the Gulf of America. The SpaceX rescue of the stranded astronauts ended wonderfully, but it also highlighted an important lesson: why a relatively small company was able to succeed where a governmental bureaucracy (NASA) and its go-to military-industrial-complex contractor (Boeing) could not. That lesson becomes clear when viewed through the Catholic social teaching of subsidiarity.

Only after the intrepid space travelers were safe and heading home did the irony of the moment strike me. The combined might of NASA and Boeing—one of the country’s largest and oldest defense contractors—was powerless to bring the astronauts back from space. Instead, it was up to the upstart SpaceX to rescue them and return them to their families.

This space escapade should be a case study studied in business school titled: “How Large Organizations Lose Their Way and Betray Their Customers.”

The symbolism of SpaceX rescuing astronauts when governmental agencies and massive defense contractors were seemingly unwilling or unable to act underscores the relevance of the Catholic principle of subsidiarity.

What is subsidiarity? The principle of subsidiarity holds that decision-making should be kept at the most local and competent level possible rather than being centralized in large, bureaucratic institutions. It is a philosophical cornerstone of two of my favorite books: Small Is Beautiful by E.F. Schumacher and Small Is Still Beautiful by Joseph Pearce. These influential books critique large-scale corporate and industrial approaches, advocating for human-centered economies, sustainability, and policies that emphasize human thriving over other considerations.

A comparison of SpaceX to behemoth entities like NASA and Boeing exposes factors that help explain this ironic David-and-Goliath story.

The Players: NASA, Boeing, and SpaceX

NASA is a government agency with about 18,000 employees. It is burdened by bureaucracy and heavily influenced by politics. Really, politics in space? Yes, indeed. Elon Musk stated that political interference prevented an earlier rescue of the stranded astronauts.

Under the Biden administration, NASA aggressively promoted Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies to incorporate into its mission and workforce. In January 2025, NASA began dismantling its DEI programs following executive orders from President Trump. These federal directives were intended to eliminate policies fostering division and inefficiency within government operations. However, these reforms were too late for the marooned astronauts who had already been launched into space and had to be rescued by SpaceX.

Boeing was founded in 1916 and has grown into a massive, bureaucratic, and highly-regulated defense contractor and aerospace manufacturer. With approximately 155,000 employees, it operates within a top-down structure, making it heavily centralized. Once an industry leader in innovation, Boeing has stagnated due to excessive corporate bureaucracy, leading to serious safety failures like the 737 MAX crisis and ongoing supply-chain issues. The company’s reliance on outsourcing and cost cutting has undermined quality and worker autonomy. Recently, Boeing came under fire for embracing controversial DEI policies that critics say compromised quality control, contributing to numerous airline mishaps and aerospace failures.

In contrast, SpaceX, founded in 2002, operates with a leaner workforce of about 13,000 employees. SpaceX maintains a start-up culture that embraces localized problem-solving and innovation—closer to Schumacher’s vision of decentralized, human-scale enterprise. SpaceX hires employees based on merit rather than DEI policies, and it emphasizes private innovation and rapid decision-making.

Engineers at SpaceX have more autonomy, aligning with Schumacher’s principle that work should be creative, fulfilling, and localized. SpaceX’s groundbreaking process of returning its rockets for reuse rather than wastefully jettisoning the rockets like NASA does gives it high marks in the environmental sustainability column. SpaceX’s mission-driven approach fosters purpose and innovation—far more than Boeing’s corporate, bureaucratic stagnation does. SpaceX’s approach is more decentralized compared to Boeing’s, better aligning with subsidiarity by keeping decision-making at lower levels.

NASA and Boeing exemplify large-scale bureaucratic industrialism, which Schumacher critiques as inefficient and detached from human needs. Both NASA and Boeing get low scores on the subsidiarity scale with SpaceX getting higher marks for subsidiarity.

The footage of SpaceX’s Dragon vessel splashing down in the Gulf of America, along with stunning images of rockets returning to Earth and being caught mid-air by giant “chopstick” arms for precise landing and sustainable reuse, powerfully showcases the superiority of SpaceX’s more subsidiarity-friendly business model over NASA and Boeing’s centralized, bureaucratic approach.

Read the Whole Article