Samuel Langley has a curious role in aerospace history–one that I don’t know what to think about.
He was a highly successful astronomer, scientist, inventor, professor, and even a Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. He was quite distinguished and internationally renown–he even received the Draper Medal from the National Academy of Sciences for his work in solar physics.
All of these facts I learned from wikipedia–because I knew so little about him.
Here’s what I did know about him already though:
He wasted $70,000 of Uncle Sam’s money trying to invent an airplane.
That’s a LOT of money in 1903 dollars, and I’m not sure it was all wasted. But the fact of the matter is, he never had an airplane to show for it. His invention launched off a platform from a ship in the Potomac and promptly flopped into the water below.
As we all know, the Wright brothers, bicycle makers from Ohio, beat him in that quest. And they did it without a grant.
There’s probably a commentary in there on acquisitions and Defense spending and other things, but I’ll try to mostly sidestep that one.
Today, as I write this, the situation with both DoD’s headline airplane projects and the big aircraft manufacturers is just as disappointing as Langley’s failed project. But again, I don’t want to stew in the failures of the past unless it gives some hope for the future.
Compare and contrast all this, with the plight of my good friend Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain. He didn’t have any resources–no money, no bullets, no troops, no supplies for his troops, no reinforcements. Quite frankly, he had no hope, at least from the outside. He had far fewer men than he needed to defend Little Round Top, and the ones he did have were tired and wounded.
So far, that sounds a lot like today’s military.
With a tactical move that was either brilliant or desperate or both, Chamberlain charged down the hill and into history, saving the day, the battle, and the war for the Union.
The bright spot here is leadership.
It was not a tool or a process or metrics.
It was not a platform or a program or a decision arrived at by survey.
It wasn’t community or connectedness.
Langley had all those things–that’s three things you can have and still fail. Chamberlain had none.
But Chamberlain had purpose: He knew that he could not lose that hill. Read his writing–that’s what he said.
Call it what you want, whether it’s purpose or vision or a goal or a plan–what I know is that it gave him meaningful direction in a moment of uncertainty. It illuminated and guided his decision.
If what you have doesn’t do those things, it will flop and crash like a Langley “aerodrome.” (He couldn’t even give the flying thing a name that stuck–”aerodrome,” really?!)
I’d like to further suggest that together with purpose, we need Providence. But I won’t spend the time reinforcing that statement: If you agree, then I don’t need to, and if you don’t agree, it’s not likely I can convince you.
All of this is relevant to what I am doing right now, I promise. And in the days, weeks, and months ahead, I’d like to tell you more about Equator and Synergy. The short version of the story is this–they are two companies turned down by Kickstarter, who I think are changing the world–only time will tell.
We don’t need Kickstarter. We don’t need a platform or process.
We need purpose.
My purpose is to build seesaws to invest in leaders and inspire others. What’s yours?
You’ve just read confessions of a freelance test pilot, a monthly column that illustrates in my personal life and leadership the technical concepts found in ATOMs. Some people may not want the technical content that appears on this website–if you only want to follow these more personal updates, I set up a special subscription for that option here: by Email or RSS.























