From the Moon to AI, astronauts shed light on emerging professions

The Mercury Seven—the seven men recruited in 1959 by NASA for the agency’s first space program—were all American males, military test pilots selected for their ability to manage the risk and uncertainty associated with experimental technologies. The four astronauts who took part in the Artemis II mission in April 2026, by contrast, have diverse backgrounds (military and civilian, one woman and one Canadian), reflecting different educational paths and greater attention to representation. Yet what the Artemis II astronauts share with their predecessors are traits such as flight experience, intensive operational training, advanced engineering skills, and the ability to manage complex systems and high-risk missions.

In a recent study, Evelyn Micelotta, Giulia Cappellaro, Claudia Gabbioneta, and Michael G. Pratt posit that astronauts are an emblematic example of how entirely new occupations develop, when nothing that has come before is comparable. These professions, the authors explain, evolve through a process of progressive stratification. In other words, like with a geological formation, new “layers” of skills and roles are added over time to an original core, which tends to remain unchanged and define the rules of the game.

No one to compete with

Literature on professions has traditionally explained the emergence of new roles through competition. A new occupation comes to be when it is differentiated in some way from existing ones; people in these new positions dynamically acquire competencies and legitimacy. But some professions appear in “unsaturated spaces,” that is, contexts in which there are no other actors to compete with. Here, there is no battle for professional territory, and no need to legitimize oneself within the organization.

Before 1958, the year NASA was founded, astronauts simply did not exist. Their profession emerged from a very strong external mandate (the political will to win the space race at the height of the Cold War) and within a completely new technological context. This brings us to the question the study seeks to answer: How is a professional identity constructed when there are no points of comparison?

A three-phase stratification

The study is based on a qualitative historical analysis. The researchers reconstructed the evolution of the profession of astronaut between 1958 and 1974 by analyzing:

• 65 astronauts from the first six cohorts selected by NASA
• 31 missions (Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and Skylab)
• 24,000+ pages of materials (including interviews, autobiographies, official documents, and press releases)

With this dataset, the researchers were able to observe how the profile of an astronaut was formed and transformed over time, passing through three main phases.

From proto-identity to professional core. At the outset, NASA selected only military test pilots, directly importing a preexisting identity into the new profession. But there was a problem: NASA envisioned astronauts as passive passengers, while the recruits wanted to actually pilot the space vehicles. This conflict led to a transformation of the profession, as astronauts gained control and redefined their role. They were still test pilots, but their job description was stripped of its military component to fit a civilian agency. And so, their core identity was born.

The entry of engineers: a synergistic layer. With the race to the Moon, technological complexity exploded. New skills were needed, and astronauts with strong engineering backgrounds stepped up to do their part. This new identity was compatible with the original one, because engineers helped pilots do their job better. The result was stratification by aggregation: The engineer became an integral part of the astronaut’s identity, without challenging the central role of the pilot.

The entry of scientists: a problematic layer. After the Moon landing, the space program changed, with less exploration, more scientific research. Doctors, physicists, and geologists joined the NASA team, but the dynamic was different. Scientists were perceived as less congruous with the dominant identity. They didn’t reinforce the pilot’s role; instead, they called it into question. The result was stratification by segregation: Scientists came on board, but stayed on the sidelines, with distinct roles that were less legitimized. To this day, in fact, scientists are designated not as commanders or pilots, but as mission specialists.

First come, first served

The research shows that in the absence of competition, new professions develop through a process of layered accretion of identity.

Here are the mechanisms that steer the process.

• Alignment between identity and work: If job duties change, identity must adapt or new skills must be introduced.
• Selection: The people who come into the profession matter enormously, because they bring new identities with them.
• Synergy: These new identities are integrated or marginalized, depending on their compatibility with the existing core.

Some contemporary roles are emerging under conditions like those we have described for astronauts, for example sustainability managers, AI specialists, and cybersecurity experts. In these cases, there is no direct competition with previously defined professionals, but instead an external mandate. As a result, layered identities may develop, with the risk of internal tensions that will need to be resolved.

Those tasked with managing the evolution of these professions must be aware that early choices have long-lasting effects. Initial selection defines the profession’s DNA. In the case of astronauts, pilots set standards and hierarchies that persist today. The paper highlights the role of one of the Mercury Seven in particular, Deke Slayton. Although he didn’t log much flight time, he became Coordinator of Astronaut Activities—the operational head of the astronauts. In this position, he controlled two decisive levers for years: selecting new astronauts and assigning roles for missions. With this authority, he helped maintain the core identity of the test pilot, favoring recruits with aviation backgrounds for key roles.

Finally, not all skills integrate into new professions in the same way. Skills that reinforce the core are absorbed; skills that challenge it risk being frozen out, with consequences for engagement and retention. In other words, politics, technology, and regulations redefine tasks, but professional identity changes more slowly and often incompletely.

Evelyn Micelotta, Giulia Cappellaro, Claudia Gabbioneta, and Michael G. Pratt. “Occupational Identity Formation in Unsaturated Spaces: The Layered Accretion of the American Astronaut’s Identity.” Administrative Science Quarterly, Online First, 1–44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392261427746.