Incidentally, both Bridenstine and Morhard have space policy experience.
There is no appetite for a new Augustine committee at this point in time. You mentioned the achievements of the Obama Administration but it is not clear to me that Obama had much involvement in those.... Although I agree that the Obama Administration did a good job for commercial crew and for NASA in general, I am not sure that it is because of President Obama himself. My understanding is that OMB deserves a lot of the credit for the FY11 NASA budget (which among other things cancelled Ares I and replaced it with commercial crew).
Quote from: yg1968 on 07/16/2018 11:08 pmIncidentally, both Bridenstine and Morhard have space policy experience.What is Morhard's experience? According to Marcia Smith, he "has no known experience in aerospace."
Quote from: yg1968 on 07/17/2018 12:59 amThere is no appetite for a new Augustine committee at this point in time. You mentioned the achievements of the Obama Administration but it is not clear to me that Obama had much involvement in those.... Although I agree that the Obama Administration did a good job for commercial crew and for NASA in general, I am not sure that it is because of President Obama himself. My understanding is that OMB deserves a lot of the credit for the FY11 NASA budget (which among other things cancelled Ares I and replaced it with commercial crew).OMB is the president, in that it's part of the executive branch. The director of OMB, currently Mike Mulvaney, is appointed by and reports directly to the president.Obama (using the term to apply to his administration in general) at least tried to kill the Shuttle-derived boondoggle and put NASA in a position where a few years down the road it might have the technology to be able to afford to do something on a realistic budget instead of being stuck with outdated hardware developed at high cost that it can't afford to use productively. Though he botched the attempt and would have faced long odds even with good execution, I am more favorably impressed by his attempt than I am by either his predecessor's creation of a budget-eating Shuttle-derived monster (Constellation) or his successor's doubling down on the Shuttle-derived boondoggle (despite claims of wanting to "drain the swamp").I'd also point out that Obama visited KSC twice -- how many other presidential visits to NASA centers can you think of in the post-Apollo era? He also took the political risk of visiting Falcon 9 on the pad before its first flight. If that rocket had blown up -- as it very well might have -- his critics would have had a field day.
Quote from: Proponent on 07/17/2018 10:49 amQuote from: yg1968 on 07/16/2018 11:08 pmIncidentally, both Bridenstine and Morhard have space policy experience.What is Morhard's experience? According to Marcia Smith, he "has no known experience in aerospace."He worked on the Appropriations side. We will find out more during the hearing. I imagine that there will also be a questionnaire for him to fill as there was for Bridenstine.
Correction: An earlier version of this article said Morhard worked on NASA’s budget while a staffer on the Commerce, Science and Justice Appropriations committee, but NASA was not included in its jurisdiction until after he left the senate.
Quote from: yg1968 on 07/17/2018 02:56 pmQuote from: Proponent on 07/17/2018 10:49 amQuote from: yg1968 on 07/16/2018 11:08 pmIncidentally, both Bridenstine and Morhard have space policy experience.What is Morhard's experience? According to Marcia Smith, he "has no known experience in aerospace."He worked on the Appropriations side. We will find out more during the hearing. I imagine that there will also be a questionnaire for him to fill as there was for Bridenstine.Morhard did not have responsibility for NASA when he was on appropriations. See this correction from the quartz, who were among the first to break the story - QuoteCorrection: An earlier version of this article said Morhard worked on NASA’s budget while a staffer on the Commerce, Science and Justice Appropriations committee, but NASA was not included in its jurisdiction until after he left the senate.https://qz.com/1327227/donald-trump-appoints-james-morhard-who-has-no-space-experience-to-be-nasas-second-in-command/As to the earlier post that WaPo manufactured the "drama" between Bridenstine and the administration, that is just utter nonsense. The fact that Morhard was nominated so quickly after Bridenstine announced his preferred choice shows that Morhard had already been chosen for the position before Bridenstine went public. These things take months to vet and roll out. Clearly Bridenstine was very passionate about his views and chose to go against the administration's pick at a great risk to his own standing with the administration. It is extraordinarily unusual for a political appointee at an agency to go against the administration on another political appointee like this.
To reach those goals, the agency needs a leader like Morhard, said Bob Walker, a former Republican congressman who helped draft President Trump’s space policy goals.“The administration has decided they want somebody who is clearly in tune with what the president wants to get done in the space program,” he said. Bridenstine “is going to have a great partner in implementing the very visionary space goals the president has set forward.”Morhard’s experience in Washington, particularly on the Appropriations Committee, will be helpful, not a hindrance, he said, adding that Morhard “has bipartisan support on the Hill.”Mark Albrecht, the executive secretary of the National Space Council under President George H.W. Bush, also said Morhard was a good pick: “He brings years of experience from the Senate Appropriations Committee reviewing programs, looking at budgets and making programs achieve their intended purposes.”
I know that OMB is part of the executive. That is why I made the distinction between the Obama Administration and Obama himself. But most of OMB isn't appointed and their employees do not change a whole lot between each administration.
I don't think that Obama cared a whole lot about NASA.
There is no appetite for a new Augustine committee at this point in time.
You mentioned the achievements of the Obama Administration but it is not clear to me that Obama had much involvement in those.
Incidentally, commercial crew (as a separate program from COTS) appeared in the 2008 NASA Authorization bill which was signed by President Bush.
Although I agree that the Obama Administration did a good job for commercial crew and for NASA in general, I am not sure that it is because of President Obama himself. My understanding is that OMB deserves a lot of the credit for the FY11 NASA budget (which among other things cancelled Ares I and replaced it with commercial crew).
In terms of the involvement of VPs, I think that it is more related to the interest of the VP himself. I remember that VP Dan Quayle was also very involved in space.
So someone such as Morhard that has experience in ensuring that programs follow their budget is encouraging.
I wasn't saying that the Trump Administration has done more. I was saying that less needs to be done today since there is no need for an overhaul of the human exploration program as was the case in 2010.
Quote from: yg1968 on 07/18/2018 04:01 amI wasn't saying that the Trump Administration has done more. I was saying that less needs to be done today since there is no need for an overhaul of the human exploration program as was the case in 2010.Really? It looks to me like the program is on track to spend a heluva lot of money without even a realistic plan to accomplish anything significant. The plan is to fund Orion and SLS, regardless of the fact that doing so will leave little money for actually doing anything useful with them. Even Morhard/Bridenstine succeed in keeping that program funded and on cost, I don't see much being accomplished.
COTS D was a different program and it preceded the 2008 NASA Authorization Act. It was an option that was never picked up by NASA. The commercial crew program that appears in the 2008 NASA Authorization Act was the commercial crew program that we know. It was funded later on (in appropriation bills signed by Obama) but it was first authorized in the 2008 NASA Authorization Act (which was signed by President Bush in October 2008).
(4) <<NOTE: Notice. Deadline. Contracts.>> issue a notice of intent, not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, to enter into a funded, competitively awarded Space Act Agreement with 2 or more commercial entities for a Phase 1 Commercial Orbital Transportation Services crewed vehicle demonstration program.
Although the name is somewhat similar, that wasn't COTS-D. COTS-D was awarded in 2006 to SpaceX and Kistler as an option. But that option was never picked up by NASA. Orbital did not offer COTS-D as an option when it was awarded a COTS agreement in early 2008. I have had this discussion with QuantumG and others in the past. He disagrees with me but I am sure that I am right. Here is links to prior discussions on this topic: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16836.msg455324#msg455324https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39662.msg1496173#msg1496173For more on COTS, see:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Orbital_Transportation_Services
I spoke with @NASA deputy administrator nominee James Morhard today. Mr. Morhard’s budget and appropriations background will be an asset to NASA moving forward. I look forward to working with him upon his confirmation.