Your software needs to be space-grade — as an aerospace operations engineer would say

For technology crucial to high-stakes sectors, why not bypass the lengthy innovation process and begin with software designed for space from the outset?

From my perspective as both a mission operations engineer and a founder, I can state that the business realm and our daily existence increasingly depend on software platforms to manage intricate situations. Our role as engineers involves identifying optimal methods for employing technology and instruments to resolve challenging issues. We concentrate on crucial matters unfolding in both digital and physical environments.

Aerospace is inherently physical, and SpaceX is exceptionally high-stakes. I can attest to this firsthand, having dedicated over a decade to SpaceX's mission operations, where I spearheaded groundbreaking advancements within the aerospace sector.

Initially, we were instructed to prioritize mission accomplishment, then to continually strive for subsequent missions. Developing aircraft, satellites, rockets, and other equipment necessitates software to facilitate the transition from concept to deployment. The challenge? The software essential for mission execution can complicate the responsibilities of an operations engineer.

Being among the initial hires on the Dragon spacecraft operations staff, I witnessed SpaceX's leadership ascend within the commercial space sector directly. The challenges we faced in the control room remained consistently demanding, from our inaugural flight in 2010 through the delivery of the first commercial astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS) in 2020.

Even with the significant issues we resolved, we encountered difficulties due to disjointed procedures and isolated operations. These included common office items such as numerous PDFs, varied spreadsheets, and manual checklists. While we managed to mend some of these separated processes and workflows eventually, the fundamental issue persisted: our systems lacked full integration, implying our fixes would only be temporary measures as long as the overarching structural problem remained uncorrected.

This issue wasn't exclusive to SpaceX; it was a widespread, hazardous gap across the industry concerning the discrepancy between software capabilities and team requirements.

We can bridge that divide now. We require additional tools designed for space, created by skilled software engineers, and fewer mechanical engineers developing essential software tools for missions. This approach would allow mechanical engineers to focus on their immediate responsibilities: guaranteeing that the planet's most urgent and high-risk operations, such as overseeing nuclear power or piloting a human-occupied aircraft into space, proceed without incident.

I've personally witnessed the significant reliance professionals in sectors such as aerospace, aviation, resource extraction, and defense place on software for seamless project execution. From conceptualizing craft for distant worlds to orchestrating vast networks of flight paths, every phase is meticulously logged, validated, and overseen by software. For undertakings of this nature, the allowance for mistakes is not merely minimal; it's entirely absent.

All companies from Coins2Day 500s to stealth startups remain confined to a life of patching together workflows using spreadsheets, shared folders, and fragmented tools. But in mission-critical industries, “good enough” just isn’t good enough. And in 2025, that’s just about every industry.

Failing to prioritize efficient, high-quality software could lead to a recurrence of events similar to the radar screen blackout incident at Newark Airport in May. While a short telecommunications disruption was cited as the cause, the consequences extended beyond the 90 seconds the radar displays were non-operational. The FAA imposed a ground stop on arriving flights, exacerbating the delays already caused by personnel shortages stemming from a different outage the month before.  

At the moment of the disruption, an air traffic controller's voice was audible, speaking to a nearby aircraft: “Scopes just went black again.” The crucial word is "again." We cannot continue to place our operators in such situations repeatedly, by leaving them with no alternative but outdated, disconnected software. The public's confidence—and security—depend on our improvement.

This process begins with developing software adhering to the most rigorous engineering standards and principles, mirroring the methods used by the world's leading innovators, rocket scientists, and engineers, and then applying these to other sectors with demanding, intricate operations such as aviation, manufacturing, or defense.

In reality, the systems we design and sell are only as robust as the software enabling them. From launching spacecraft to updating healthcare practices or evaluating advanced military initiatives, operations across various sectors function at a critical point where errors incur substantial consequences—either monetary or human. Should the software driving these endeavors lack robustness, user-friendliness, and durability, it becomes a vulnerability in the overall structure, presenting an opening for malicious entities and, more frequently, automated attackers.

For professionals in demanding sectors, it's crucial that our operational software is as robust as the systems it manages, offering complete traceability and visibility, and designed to accommodate intricate workflows rather than forcing them to conform.

Modern software should proactively avert issues rather than create or crash. This translates to developing platforms that prioritize version control, live collaboration, traceable records, and robust data protection.

Reaching that point, though, involves looking beyond mere checklist items. While at SpaceX, we had the chance to develop proprietary operational software internally. Initially, our blueprints seemed perfect. Yet, in reality, we had to focus on the ultimate user. Integrating usability trials with individuals lacking technical backgrounds uncovered fleeting human tendencies, such as gaze and scanning habits, which could grant operators vital fractions of a second during crucial decision-making for missions.

What I mean by “space-grade,” isn't about being overly complicated or exclusive to aerospace. Instead, I'm referring to sophisticated software that combines operational discipline with a focus on user experience, resulting in integrated platforms and instruments that can manage demanding, significant tasks across all sectors.

The same capabilities once exclusive to spacecraft are now empowering teams in defense, energy, nuclear fusion, and advanced manufacturing. Shouldn't these advancements also benefit sectors like accounting, customer service, or legal industries?

Success, in any mission, starts with a solid foundation. And today, that foundation is software. The right platform doesn’t just make your team more efficient or your company stand out from competitors—it makes your operation safer, more accountable, and more prepared for the unexpected.

Let’s raise the bar for tools, platforms, and software powering our world and the exploration of our galaxy. Both stand to thrive if we can achieve space-grade innovation across engineering contexts.

Holding software to the standard you’d hold spacecraft engineering in terms of durability, security, and practicality not only levels up each mission, but can create new industry standards of excellence for a more resilient tomorrow.

The views presented in Coins2Day.com commentary articles belong exclusively to their writers and don't always align with the perspectives and convictions of  Coins2Day .