I grew up in Loveland, Colorado in a family where engineering was just part of everyday life. Everyone in my immediate family was an engineer, so problem solving and technical thinking were always around me. At the same time, I was drawn to the mountains more than the classroom.
I competed nationally and internationally in snowboard cross and rode with the Steamboat Springs snowboard team. That environment shaped a lot of how I think today. In racing, you learn quickly that conditions change constantly and decisions have to be made in real time. That mindset later carried over into engineering, especially in high-stakes environments where uncertainty is always present.
Even before college, I was already balancing two worlds: structured technical thinking at home and fast, physical decision-making in sport.
Education and Building a Technical Foundation
I started my formal education at Colorado Mountain College in Steamboat Springs, where I completed my associate’s degree. After that, I transferred to the University of Colorado Boulder University of Colorado Boulder, where I completed both my bachelor’s and master’s degrees in mechanical engineering, graduating in 2012.
Those years gave me the technical foundation I still rely on today. Mechanical engineering taught me how to think in systems, how energy moves through structures, and how to break down complex problems into manageable parts. But just as importantly, it taught me that models are only as good as the assumptions behind them.
That lesson became even more important once I entered national laboratory work.
Starting at Sandia and Learning High-Stakes Systems Thinking
I began my career at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico. I worked in modeling and simulation focused on national security applications. It was my first real exposure to engineering where failure was not theoretical. The work carried real-world consequences, and that changes how you approach everything.
At Sandia, I learned that systems thinking is not optional. Every model or simulation is connected to a larger system, and small changes can have wide-reaching effects. You cannot isolate one piece of a problem and assume it behaves independently. Everything is linked.
One of the biggest lessons from that time was discipline in assumptions. If you cannot clearly state what your model assumes, you cannot trust your results. That level of rigor became a habit that followed me throughout my career.
Transitioning to Space Systems at Lockheed Martin
After five years at Sandia, I transitioned to Lockheed Martin, where I focused on space vehicle design. This shift took me from primarily simulation work into more integrated system design for spacecraft.
The biggest change was seeing how theory connects to hardware. At Sandia, I was close to mission outcomes through modeling. At Lockheed Martin, I saw how those models became physical systems that had to survive launch, space environments, and long-duration missions.
The pressure was different, but the core lesson stayed the same: every decision has downstream consequences. A design choice made early in a spacecraft program can affect performance years later in orbit.
Leading as Chief Engineer at Sierra Space
After five years at Lockheed Martin, I moved to Sierra Space. Over nearly six years there, I eventually became Chief Engineer.
This was where systems thinking became leadership thinking. It was not just about solving technical problems, but about guiding teams through them. I had to help engineers connect their work to the larger mission, while also making sure we were not losing rigor under schedule pressure.
One of the most important lessons in that role was learning how to balance speed with understanding. In space systems, moving fast is important, but moving without full awareness of risk can create problems that are far more expensive later. The job was constantly about finding that balance.
Moving Into a Startup Environment
After Sierra Space, I transitioned into a smaller startup environment, where I now work as a Mission Architect. The shift from large organizations to a smaller team changed the pace again. There is more flexibility, but also more direct responsibility for outcomes.
In a startup, you cannot rely on layers of process to catch issues. You have to bring discipline with you. The habits formed at national laboratories and large aerospace companies become even more important because the margin for error is smaller.
What National Laboratories Taught Me About Engineering
Looking back, my time working with national laboratories like Sandia National Laboratories shaped the foundation of how I approach every engineering problem.
The most important lesson is that uncertainty is not something to ignore. It is something to understand. We do not eliminate risk by hoping it goes away. We eliminate risk by modeling it, testing it, and making it visible.
Another lesson is that communication is part of engineering. If you cannot explain your assumptions clearly, then your work is incomplete. In high-stakes environments, clarity is just as important as technical accuracy.
Beyond Engineering: Discipline from Sport and Life
Outside of engineering, I still spend a lot of time snowboarding, programming, and ice racing. I also value time with friends and family, and I am preparing to become a father. Those experiences matter more than people might expect in technical work.
Sport taught me how to stay calm under pressure and adapt quickly. Engineering taught me how to slow down and think deeply before acting. The combination of those two perspectives has shaped how I work in every environment.
I also volunteer in education and with a volunteer fire department, along with sustainability-focused efforts. Those activities keep me grounded in the idea that engineering should ultimately serve people and communities, not just systems.
Final Thoughts
Working inside national laboratories and across aerospace companies has taught me that good engineering is not defined by speed or complexity. It is defined by understanding.
Whether I am working on spacecraft, simulation models, or mission architecture, the goal is the same: build systems that behave as expected in the real world, under real pressure, with real consequences.
That is what I carry forward from those early days in national labs, and it continues to guide how I approach every problem today.