In his new role Gerstenmaier is reporting to SpaceX vice president of mission assurance Hans Koenigsmann
A SpaceX spokesperson confirmed that Gerstenmaier is a consultant for the company's reliability engineering team.
The article didn't say whether Gerst would be working on the Crew Dragon or Starship side. Or, did I miss that?
Huge hire for SpaceX for a number of reasons.
Foremost is this gives the company gravitas within the traditional aerospace community and defense industry. Few people are more widely respected in aerospace than Gerstenmaier.
Like, do you want to win government contracts for Starship? Because this is how you win government contracts for Starship. Gerstenmaier was the ultimate insider in the civil space industry.
Congratulations to the company @SpaceX with an invitation to work an outstanding specialist engineer, former head of the manned program @NASA William Gerstenmaier. Bill made a huge contribution to the success of the project. #МКС . I wish my friend success in a new job!
Quote from: seawolfe on 02/11/2020 05:06 pmThe article didn't say whether Gerst would be working on the Crew Dragon or Starship side. Or, did I miss that?It did not say that, but Crew Dragon is more or less finished.I believe he is supposed to help with Starship, since it's currently being built without NASA supervision and experience (opposed to crew dragon).
A SpaceX spokesperson confirmed that Gerstenmaier is a consultant for the company’s reliability engineering team.
Further limitations upon the post-government employment activities of certain officials existunder so-called “procurement integrity” provisions of federal law for those former federalofficials who had acted as contracting officers or who had other specified contracting orprocurement functions for an agency. These additional restrictions go beyond the prohibitions onmerely “representational,” lobbying, or advocacy activities on behalf of private entities before thegovernment, and extend also to any compensated activity for or on behalf of certain privatecontractors for a period of time after a former procurement official had worked on certaincontracts for the government.The current post-employment restrictions within the procurement integrity provisions of federallaw are codified at 41 U.S.C. Sections 2103 and 2104. Under such provisions, former federalofficials who were involved in certain contracting and procurement duties for the governmentconcerning contracts in excess of $10 million may generally not receive any compensation fromthe private contractor involved, as an employee, officer, consultant, or director of that contractor,for one year after performing those procurement duties for the government.27The types of contracting duties and decisions for the government which would trigger coverageunder these provisions include acting as the “procuring contracting officer, the source selectionauthority, a member of the source selection evaluation board, or the chief of a financial ortechnical evaluation team in a procurement” in excess of $10 million; serving as the programmanager, deputy program manager, or administrative contracting officer for covered contracts; orbeing an officer who personally made decisions awarding a contract, subcontract, modification ofa contract, or task order or delivery order in excess of $10 million, establishing overhead or otherrates valued in excess of $10 million, or approving payments or settlement of claims for acontract in excess of the covered amount.
So, has NASA verified that this meets government regulations?QuoteFurther limitations upon the post-government employment activities of certain officials existunder so-called “procurement integrity” provisions of federal law for those former federalofficials who had acted as contracting officers or who had other specified contracting orprocurement functions for an agency. These additional restrictions go beyond the prohibitions onmerely “representational,” lobbying, or advocacy activities on behalf of private entities before thegovernment, and extend also to any compensated activity for or on behalf of certain privatecontractors for a period of time after a former procurement official had worked on certaincontracts for the government.The current post-employment restrictions within the procurement integrity provisions of federallaw are codified at 41 U.S.C. Sections 2103 and 2104. Under such provisions, former federalofficials who were involved in certain contracting and procurement duties for the governmentconcerning contracts in excess of $10 million may generally not receive any compensation fromthe private contractor involved, as an employee, officer, consultant, or director of that contractor,for one year after performing those procurement duties for the government.27The types of contracting duties and decisions for the government which would trigger coverageunder these provisions include acting as the “procuring contracting officer, the source selectionauthority, a member of the source selection evaluation board, or the chief of a financial ortechnical evaluation team in a procurement” in excess of $10 million; serving as the programmanager, deputy program manager, or administrative contracting officer for covered contracts; orbeing an officer who personally made decisions awarding a contract, subcontract, modification ofa contract, or task order or delivery order in excess of $10 million, establishing overhead or otherrates valued in excess of $10 million, or approving payments or settlement of claims for acontract in excess of the covered amount. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42728.pdfI'm frankly surprised they didn't wait a year since Wiliam Gerstenmaier was removed as head of HEOMD to give him a job since he could be considered a program manager for SpaceX's commercial crew and cargo contracts.
QuoteA SpaceX spokesperson confirmed that Gerstenmaier is a consultant for the company’s reliability engineering team.I think everyone needs to slow down a bit. He's a consultant, which usually implies a short-term advisory role. It could be a sort of trial period for both parties that morphs into a full-time leadership role, but I would not assume it from this article.
Quote from: ncb1397 on 02/11/2020 06:18 pmSo, has NASA verified that this meets government regulations?QuoteFurther limitations upon the post-government employment activities of certain officials existunder so-called “procurement integrity” provisions of federal law for those former federalofficials who had acted as contracting officers or who had other specified contracting orprocurement functions for an agency. These additional restrictions go beyond the prohibitions onmerely “representational,” lobbying, or advocacy activities on behalf of private entities before thegovernment, and extend also to any compensated activity for or on behalf of certain privatecontractors for a period of time after a former procurement official had worked on certaincontracts for the government.The current post-employment restrictions within the procurement integrity provisions of federallaw are codified at 41 U.S.C. Sections 2103 and 2104. Under such provisions, former federalofficials who were involved in certain contracting and procurement duties for the governmentconcerning contracts in excess of $10 million may generally not receive any compensation fromthe private contractor involved, as an employee, officer, consultant, or director of that contractor,for one year after performing those procurement duties for the government.27The types of contracting duties and decisions for the government which would trigger coverageunder these provisions include acting as the “procuring contracting officer, the source selectionauthority, a member of the source selection evaluation board, or the chief of a financial ortechnical evaluation team in a procurement” in excess of $10 million; serving as the programmanager, deputy program manager, or administrative contracting officer for covered contracts; orbeing an officer who personally made decisions awarding a contract, subcontract, modification ofa contract, or task order or delivery order in excess of $10 million, establishing overhead or otherrates valued in excess of $10 million, or approving payments or settlement of claims for acontract in excess of the covered amount. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42728.pdfI'm frankly surprised they didn't wait a year since Wiliam Gerstenmaier was removed as head of HEOMD to give him a job since he could be considered a program manager for SpaceX's commercial crew and cargo contracts.Maybe that's why his title contractor for now... this great for SpaceX and NASA.
Lori Garver@Lori_GarverThis is awesome! After holding his cards close as a civil servant for decades - Gerst plays his hand! Congrats & huge win for @SpaceX & commercial crew! SpaceX brings on NASA's former top spaceflight official as it prepares to launch first astronauts
Quote from: ThomasGadd on 02/11/2020 06:27 pmQuote from: ncb1397 on 02/11/2020 06:18 pmSo, has NASA verified that this meets government regulations?QuoteFurther limitations upon the post-government employment activities of certain officials existunder so-called “procurement integrity” provisions of federal law for those former federalofficials who had acted as contracting officers or who had other specified contracting orprocurement functions for an agency. These additional restrictions go beyond the prohibitions onmerely “representational,” lobbying, or advocacy activities on behalf of private entities before thegovernment, and extend also to any compensated activity for or on behalf of certain privatecontractors for a period of time after a former procurement official had worked on certaincontracts for the government.The current post-employment restrictions within the procurement integrity provisions of federallaw are codified at 41 U.S.C. Sections 2103 and 2104. Under such provisions, former federalofficials who were involved in certain contracting and procurement duties for the governmentconcerning contracts in excess of $10 million may generally not receive any compensation fromthe private contractor involved, as an employee, officer, consultant, or director of that contractor,for one year after performing those procurement duties for the government.27The types of contracting duties and decisions for the government which would trigger coverageunder these provisions include acting as the “procuring contracting officer, the source selectionauthority, a member of the source selection evaluation board, or the chief of a financial ortechnical evaluation team in a procurement” in excess of $10 million; serving as the programmanager, deputy program manager, or administrative contracting officer for covered contracts; orbeing an officer who personally made decisions awarding a contract, subcontract, modification ofa contract, or task order or delivery order in excess of $10 million, establishing overhead or otherrates valued in excess of $10 million, or approving payments or settlement of claims for acontract in excess of the covered amount. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42728.pdfI'm frankly surprised they didn't wait a year since Wiliam Gerstenmaier was removed as head of HEOMD to give him a job since he could be considered a program manager for SpaceX's commercial crew and cargo contracts.Maybe that's why his title contractor for now... this great for SpaceX and NASA. Well, the CRS-2, CRS and commercial crew contracts may not be covered contracts because decisions on those weren't made in the last year (again,NASA has the information on this internally). So, even though he was a program manager (or rather the program manager's manager), those don't count as covered contracts. If NASA's, SpaceX's and Gerstenmaier's lawyers all looked at this thoroughly and it went through, it is at least an interesting anecdote about what is and is not legal.
A tremendous addition to the SpaceX team while keeping Bill in the greater Human Spaceflight Family. He will help make an already excellent team even better. Congrats to you Bill and to SpaceX!!! - Charlie B.
He could also be hugely consequential wrt the upcoming Lunar Lander program.
I know a Gerst is intimately familiar with the SpaceX culture of innovate hard, build fast, fail big, learn copiously, repeat. But it’s another thing to be IN that culture. I hope there’s a strong synergy developed and Gerst’s brake pumping will integrate well with Elon’s lead foot...
Quote from: ncb1397 on 02/11/2020 06:36 pmQuote from: ThomasGadd on 02/11/2020 06:27 pmQuote from: ncb1397 on 02/11/2020 06:18 pmSo, has NASA verified that this meets government regulations?QuoteFurther limitations upon the post-government employment activities of certain officials existunder so-called “procurement integrity” provisions of federal law for those former federalofficials who had acted as contracting officers or who had other specified contracting orprocurement functions for an agency. These additional restrictions go beyond the prohibitions onmerely “representational,” lobbying, or advocacy activities on behalf of private entities before thegovernment, and extend also to any compensated activity for or on behalf of certain privatecontractors for a period of time after a former procurement official had worked on certaincontracts for the government.The current post-employment restrictions within the procurement integrity provisions of federallaw are codified at 41 U.S.C. Sections 2103 and 2104. Under such provisions, former federalofficials who were involved in certain contracting and procurement duties for the governmentconcerning contracts in excess of $10 million may generally not receive any compensation fromthe private contractor involved, as an employee, officer, consultant, or director of that contractor,for one year after performing those procurement duties for the government.27The types of contracting duties and decisions for the government which would trigger coverageunder these provisions include acting as the “procuring contracting officer, the source selectionauthority, a member of the source selection evaluation board, or the chief of a financial ortechnical evaluation team in a procurement” in excess of $10 million; serving as the programmanager, deputy program manager, or administrative contracting officer for covered contracts; orbeing an officer who personally made decisions awarding a contract, subcontract, modification ofa contract, or task order or delivery order in excess of $10 million, establishing overhead or otherrates valued in excess of $10 million, or approving payments or settlement of claims for acontract in excess of the covered amount. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42728.pdfI'm frankly surprised they didn't wait a year since Wiliam Gerstenmaier was removed as head of HEOMD to give him a job since he could be considered a program manager for SpaceX's commercial crew and cargo contracts.Maybe that's why his title contractor for now... this great for SpaceX and NASA. Well, the CRS-2, CRS and commercial crew contracts may not be covered contracts because decisions on those weren't made in the last year (again,NASA has the information on this internally). So, even though he was a program manager (or rather the program manager's manager), those don't count as covered contracts. If NASA's, SpaceX's and Gerstenmaier's lawyers all looked at this thoroughly and it went through, it is at least an interesting anecdote about what is and is not legal.I suppose this means he couldn't go to Boeing because of the extra money they got not too long ago, no?
The candid, off-the-record reaction I've gotten from flight directors and astronauts in Houston to Bill Gerstenmaier's move to SpaceX has been very positive. It's seen as good for both NASA and the company.
Why would he go to Boeing (eventually)? Only reason I can think of is a huge paypacket....
All of this is further amplified by the fact that Boeing's problems are a threat SpaceX. Urged on by the likes of former astronaut Stafford, Congress, particularly the House (see H.R. 5666) tends to view Starliner's travails not as a sign that Boeing is a bad contractor but that anything other than traditional, NASA-owned and managed systems are dangerous.
Quote from: Proponent on 02/12/2020 02:08 pmAll of this is further amplified by the fact that Boeing's problems are a threat SpaceX. Urged on by the likes of former astronaut Stafford, Congress, particularly the House (see H.R. 5666) tends to view Starliner's travails not as a sign that Boeing is a bad contractor but that anything other than traditional, NASA-owned and managed systems are dangerous.They kind of have a point. Dragon has a 5% cargo loss rate, over 3x higher than Shuttle that it replaced. Cygnus is even worse at 9% or 6x higher than the Shuttle that they replaced. Both providers on the crew side had serious anomalies with their uncrewed demonstration vehicles mere months before they were supposed to fly crewed that included the risk of LOV and LOV. While the space shuttle had the risk of LOV on its first mission, it wasn't until much farther in that any shuttle was lost in a mishap.
Quote from: ncb1397 on 02/12/2020 08:18 pmQuote from: Proponent on 02/12/2020 02:08 pmAll of this is further amplified by the fact that Boeing's problems are a threat SpaceX. Urged on by the likes of former astronaut Stafford, Congress, particularly the House (see H.R. 5666) tends to view Starliner's travails not as a sign that Boeing is a bad contractor but that anything other than traditional, NASA-owned and managed systems are dangerous.They kind of have a point. Dragon has a 5% cargo loss rate, over 3x higher than Shuttle that it replaced. Cygnus is even worse at 9% or 6x higher than the Shuttle that they replaced. Both providers on the crew side had serious anomalies with their uncrewed demonstration vehicles mere months before they were supposed to fly crewed that included the risk of LOV and LOV. While the space shuttle had the risk of LOV on its first mission, it wasn't until much farther in that any shuttle was lost in a mishap.SMDH
You can always extrapolate early failures into the steady state, and thus predict a horrible track records.
Quote from: meekGee on 02/12/2020 10:10 pmYou can always extrapolate early failures into the steady state, and thus predict a horrible track records. The statistics back it up however you look at it. Up to this point in Dragon and Cygnus' mission count, space shuttle had zero loss of cargo or crew. And it is fully backed up by theory. With programs like shuttle, you had two intimately involved organizations with differing priorities(one public, one private) responsible and looking after crew safety and reliability. This protects from organizational errors as each organization in turn has to falter (for instance, with the launch of challenger when there wasn't data on the SRB behavior in those precise conditions where both the contractor and the public agency approved the launch and the risk it represented). With the current hands off approach, any organizational defects or oversights in the engineering rests nearly entirely on the contractor with the public agency not providing full oversight. NASA likely didn't know or have the man power to go over every software test's data and show the starliner service module code wasn't fully functional. They also didn't have the manpower or resources to make sure one way valves weren't liable to leak, something that escaped attention from the contractor but could have been caught by NASA's inspectors.
Quote from: ncb1397 on 02/12/2020 10:33 pmQuote from: meekGee on 02/12/2020 10:10 pmYou can always extrapolate early failures into the steady state, and thus predict a horrible track records. The statistics back it up however you look at it. Up to this point in Dragon and Cygnus' mission count, space shuttle had zero loss of cargo or crew. And it is fully backed up by theory. With programs like shuttle, you had two intimately involved organizations with differing priorities(one public, one private) responsible and looking after crew safety and reliability. This protects from organizational errors as each organization in turn has to falter (for instance, with the launch of challenger when there wasn't data on the SRB behavior in those precise conditions where both the contractor and the public agency approved the launch and the risk it represented). With the current hands off approach, any organizational defects or oversights in the engineering rests nearly entirely on the contractor with the public agency not providing full oversight. NASA likely didn't know or have the man power to go over every software test's data and show the starliner service module code wasn't fully functional. They also didn't have the manpower or resources to make sure one way valves weren't liable to leak, something that escaped attention from the contractor but could have been caught by NASA's inspectors. A) With a manned program, you wouldn't fly on a modified rocket until proven with cargo first.
Things might change if Gerstenmaier bestows his blessing on the SpaceX Starship. If the Space Launch System runs into some of the same problems that other Boeing vehicles, such as the Starliner and the 737-Max have, then with any luck, the SpaceX Starship will be available as a Plan B. Gerstenmaier could serve an invaluable role in selling the Starship, not only to NASA, but to other customers. The United States is not the only country with lunar aspirations. One can imagine the European Space Agency or perhaps the Gulf Arab States leasing a Starship to send an expedition to the lunar surface.Gerstenmaier could serve as the ultimate rainmaker for SpaceX. A rainmaker is usually a senior partner at a law firm whose role is to drum up business by virtue of who he or she knows. Bill Gerstenmaier knows a lot of people, many of who may be willing to spend money to obtain the services that SpaceX has to offer.
QuoteThings might change if Gerstenmaier bestows his blessing on the SpaceX Starship. If the Space Launch System runs into some of the same problems that other Boeing vehicles, such as the Starliner and the 737-Max have, then with any luck, the SpaceX Starship will be available as a Plan B. Gerstenmaier could serve an invaluable role in selling the Starship, not only to NASA, but to other customers. The United States is not the only country with lunar aspirations. One can imagine the European Space Agency or perhaps the Gulf Arab States leasing a Starship to send an expedition to the lunar surface.Gerstenmaier could serve as the ultimate rainmaker for SpaceX. A rainmaker is usually a senior partner at a law firm whose role is to drum up business by virtue of who he or she knows. Bill Gerstenmaier knows a lot of people, many of who may be willing to spend money to obtain the services that SpaceX has to offer.Interesting that the author thinks SpaceX hired Gerstenmaier for his rolodex.Also: oof those reader comments.
Mark Whittington suggests that Gerst's value to SpaceX will be principally in promoting Starship.
I see them (on desktop browser) two places: before the article on the byline, and after the article beneath the "Share" and "Tweet" button (button says "Load Comments(15)" right now.
There are very good reasons for SpaceX to hire Gerst totally unrelated to the fact that he formerly presided over an organization giving government money to SpaceX.But he did preside over an organization giving government money to SpaceX. I think it's improper for him to later get benefits from SpaceX because of that.It's like a lawyer with a case before a judge meeting alone with the judge. There might be perfectly good reasons for that to happen that have nothing to do with the case. But it's still improper. It's important to have a clear rule against such things, to secure against the possibility of corruption, even unconscious corruption.Even if everything with SpaceX and Gerst is innocent, the message it sends to other government employees, intended or not, is corrupting. It says that if they if SpaceX likes them, they can have a huge personal benefit for themselves later.Other big government aerospace contractors have been doing this for decades, and it was wrong then, and it's wrong now for it to be happening with SpaceX.EDIT: Note that I'm not saying this is illegal. I think it is legal. I think the laws on such conduct are insufficient.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 02/18/2020 07:02 pmThere are very good reasons for SpaceX to hire Gerst totally unrelated to the fact that he formerly presided over an organization giving government money to SpaceX.But he did preside over an organization giving government money to SpaceX. I think it's improper for him to later get benefits from SpaceX because of that.It's like a lawyer with a case before a judge meeting alone with the judge. There might be perfectly good reasons for that to happen that have nothing to do with the case. But it's still improper. It's important to have a clear rule against such things, to secure against the possibility of corruption, even unconscious corruption.Even if everything with SpaceX and Gerst is innocent, the message it sends to other government employees, intended or not, is corrupting. It says that if they if SpaceX likes them, they can have a huge personal benefit for themselves later.Other big government aerospace contractors have been doing this for decades, and it was wrong then, and it's wrong now for it to be happening with SpaceX.EDIT: Note that I'm not saying this is illegal. I think it is legal. I think the laws on such conduct are insufficient.NASA works with everyone in aerospace. Are you saying Gerst effectively shouldn't be allowed to pursue a career as a civilian after employment by NASA?
Quote from: abaddon on 02/18/2020 07:34 pmQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 02/18/2020 07:02 pmThere are very good reasons for SpaceX to hire Gerst totally unrelated to the fact that he formerly presided over an organization giving government money to SpaceX.But he did preside over an organization giving government money to SpaceX. I think it's improper for him to later get benefits from SpaceX because of that.It's like a lawyer with a case before a judge meeting alone with the judge. There might be perfectly good reasons for that to happen that have nothing to do with the case. But it's still improper. It's important to have a clear rule against such things, to secure against the possibility of corruption, even unconscious corruption.Even if everything with SpaceX and Gerst is innocent, the message it sends to other government employees, intended or not, is corrupting. It says that if they if SpaceX likes them, they can have a huge personal benefit for themselves later.Other big government aerospace contractors have been doing this for decades, and it was wrong then, and it's wrong now for it to be happening with SpaceX.EDIT: Note that I'm not saying this is illegal. I think it is legal. I think the laws on such conduct are insufficient.NASA works with everyone in aerospace. Are you saying Gerst effectively shouldn't be allowed to pursue a career as a civilian after employment by NASA?Gerst's experience leading a large, highly-visible organization would be highly valuable to a huge number of companies in a huge number of industries.When someone has a highly-successful career in the military, their prospects after leaving the service are not limited to defense contractors. Many of them go on to highly-successful careers in every sort of industry.Good leadership is valuable everywhere.
So you think it's fine to exclude someone like him from an entire industry, got it.Yeah... can't agree with that, at all. Shrug.
Title 5: Administrative PersonnelPART 2641—POST-EMPLOYMENT CONFLICT OF INTEREST RESTRICTIONSContentsSubpart A—General Provisions§2641.101 Purpose.§2641.102 Applicability.§2641.103 Enforcement and penalties.§2641.104 Definitions.§2641.105 Advice.§2641.106 Applicability of certain provisions to Vice President.Subpart B—Prohibitions§2641.201 Permanent restriction on any former employee's representations to United States concerning particular matter in which the employee participated personally and substantially.§2641.202 Two-year restriction on any former employee's representations to United States concerning particular matter for which the employee had official responsibility.§2641.203 One-year restriction on any former employee's representations, aid, or advice concerning ongoing trade or treaty negotiation.§2641.204 One-year restriction on any former senior employee's representations to former agency concerning any matter, regardless of prior involvement.§2641.205 Two-year restriction on any former very senior employee's representations to former agency or certain officials concerning any matter, regardless of prior involvement.§2641.206 One-year restriction on any former senior or very senior employee's representations on behalf of, or aid or advice to, a foreign entity.§2641.207 One-year restriction on any former private sector assignee under the Information Technology Exchange Program representing, aiding, counseling or assisting in representing in connection with any contract with former agency.>
Quote from: abaddon on 02/18/2020 07:48 pmSo you think it's fine to exclude someone like him from an entire industry, got it.Yeah... can't agree with that, at all. Shrug.That's the price of taking a government job, going out on a limb to defend SpaceX from scrutiny, get reassigned and then magically SpaceX starts hitting their timeline again.It's not only improper for Gerstenmaier to go work for SpaceX, it's abundantly clear that he has been actively shielding SpaceX for years and slowing down the start of commercial crew services. It's fair to assume that his job at SpaceX will involve doing the same.Pathological risk reduction.
That's the price of taking a government job, going out on a limb to defend SpaceX from scrutiny, get reassigned and then magically SpaceX starts hitting their timeline again.It's not only improper for Gerstenmaier to go work for SpaceX, it's abundantly clear that he has been actively shielding SpaceX for years and slowing down the start of commercial crew services. It's fair to assume that his job at SpaceX will involve doing the same.Pathological risk reduction.
After reading many posts here about Gerst, am I just wrong about my memory of Gerst actually "not" being a SpaceX fan while in NASA? I know everybody says that Gerst protected the two vendor thing for NASA, but my head canon remembers him being against SpaceX not for them. Am I just mis remembering?
Quote from: happyflower on 02/19/2020 06:24 pmAfter reading many posts here about Gerst, am I just wrong about my memory of Gerst actually "not" being a SpaceX fan while in NASA? I know everybody says that Gerst protected the two vendor thing for NASA, but my head canon remembers him being against SpaceX not for them. Am I just mis remembering?Mandella has it rightAfter Boeing’s OFT fiasco a Tweet from Lori Garver reminded people that Gerst wanted only one Commercial Crew vendor and alluded that he wanted that company to be Boeing
Here's a pro-tip for anyone who wants to understand what is happening within a organization:Ask.
Heard some good news yesterday on Bill Gerstenmaier, NASA's former chief of human spaceflight. He loves it at SpaceX because he's doing real engineering again, outside the Beltway. Sleeves rolled up, diving into it, that sort of thing.
Great news and very well deservedhttps://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1260577039519711233QuoteHeard some good news yesterday on Bill Gerstenmaier, NASA's former chief of human spaceflight. He loves it at SpaceX because he's doing real engineering again, outside the Beltway. Sleeves rolled up, diving into it, that sort of thing.
(September 5, 2020) e-Town Hall Meeting with Bill Gerstenmaier, Bruce Banerdt and Frank Czopek($4.95 each ticket) (No refund within 7 days of the event or after the event)Funds will be used for STEM activities and student awards/scholarships. For special needs to waive this fees, please contact [email snipped].September 5th, 2020, 10 AMAgenda/Schedule (September 5, 2020)10:05 AM Dr. Chandrashekhar Sonwane (AIAA LA LV Section Chair) (Welcome)10:10 AM Dr. Dan Dumbacher (AIAA Eexcutive Director)10:30 AM Dr. Bill Gerstenmaier (SpaceX)12:00 PM Dr. Bruce Banerdt (Mars InSight)1:30 PM Frank Czopek (Introduction to GPS and Pre-History of GPS)4:00 PM AdjournInternational Space Station’s critical role in enabling human exploration beyond low Earth orbitbyDr. William H. GerstenmaierSpaceXAIAA Honorary FellowFormer Associate Administrator for the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (NASA HQ) The InSight Mission to MarsbyJPL Mission Principal InvestigatorDr. Bruce BanerdtNASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory(Landed at Elysium Planitia on November 26, 2018)Introduction to GPS & Pre-History of GPSbyFrank Czopek
[bio snipped]Station is often recognized for being an engineering marvel, playing a key role in international cooperation, and for having crews continuously on board for almost 20 years. This presentation will focus on the key role that ISS is playing in enabling human exploration beyond low Earth orbit. ISS obviously can enable testing of spacecraft systems that must work for the extended journey’s beyond low Earth orbit. This presentation will discuss many subtle and critical aspects that are not commonly attributed to ISS. It is often stated that the funds spent of ISS would be better spent directly on human exploration beyond low Earth orbit. This presentation will provide an alternate viewpoint and show that ISS today is contributing in ways that could be critical to the future success.
Gerstenmaier warns against ending space station program prematurelyby Jeff Foust — September 8, 2020
He declined to go into specifics about his work at SpaceX, but said there’s less difference between work at the company versus that at NASA than one might expect, at least from a technical standpoint.“It’s interesting being on both sides,” he said. “The demands of human spaceflight are the same. The precision that we have to do every day to make sure our crews are safe, make sure the hardware works, are absolutely the same. There’s no forgiveness for mistakes or being lazy or not sharing. You have to be 100% focused. That’s what we’re working on at SpaceX: how do we transition and get ready to really establish a transportation system that normal people would be willing to use.”
Really awesome read. It seems Gerstenmaier is having the time of his life working at SpaceX compared to how limited he was before
I find this fascinating, since Gerst led human spaceflight at NASA for many years & could have championed changes to the program & procurement to incentivize the right behaviors much earlier. Glad he eventually supported & is now reaping the rewards.
Lori: I'm curious what you think Gerst could have done as NASA AA --with the Congress & OMB of the day--that would have positioned NASA to be in a better position than it is today, which in my 34-yrs of agency coverage, is pretty darn strong, compared to previous decades.
NASA establishment (including Gerst), didn't want the commercial crew program, preferred Ares/Orion & channeled their views to the Hill. As one of the most respected NASA voices, if he'd supported the Admin plan, others would have followed. More in the book on the details
Good spot!https://twitter.com/nasawatch/status/1587444094304935936QuoteHey look - its Gerst - with a headset! #SpaceX #FalconHeavy #USSF44
Hey look - its Gerst - with a headset! #SpaceX #FalconHeavy #USSF44
My first official SpaceX interview on my Ellie in Space channel. I chatted with longtime NASA veteran William Gerstenmaier who now works at #spacex @aiaa #AIAASciTech FULL INTERVIEW HERE:
