This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Congress

Bridenstine Confirmation: Its Going To Be Close

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
January 16, 2018
Filed under
Bridenstine Confirmation: Its Going To Be Close

Rep. Bridenstine’s Bid to Become NASA Head Stumbles Amid Partisan Brawl, Wall Street Journal (behind paywall)
“Now, industry officials and some congressional supporters of Mr. Bridenstine see the math becoming more challenging, partly due to factors outside their control. Last month’s election of Democratic Sen. Doug Jones of Alabama narrowed the Republican majority, while continuing health issues could keep Republican Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi from voting in favor or the nomination. With Republican Senators Marco Rubio of Florida and John McCain of Arizona widely seen as firmly opposed for policy and personal reasons, Senate GOP leaders envision a difficult – and potentially monthslong – confirmation battle, according to industry officials and others familiar with their thinking. … White House officials, however, are standing behind the choice and, according to outsiders tracking the process, aren’t considering alternative candidates. … “The president looks forward to Rep. Bridenstine’s swift confirmation by the Senate, and is confident he will lead NASA to ensure America is a leader in space exploration once again,” said Lindsay Walters, a White House spokeswoman.”
Bridenstine Nomination Update, earlier post
“Right now the expected support for Rep. Bridenstine remains exactly where it has been for him (and many other Trump nominees) for many months: split along party lines. With Sen. Rubio still in the “no” column. If the vote were taken in December (and Sen. McCain and Sen. Cochran were well enough to be in town to vote) it is expected that Bridenstine would have been confirmed 51 to 49. Senator-Elect Jones (D-AL) has now been seated so the expected vote would now be 50/50 with Vice President Pence casting a tie-breaking vote – if nothing else change interms of the party line split with everyone voting and Rubio’s stance.”
Keith’s note: Contrary to reporting by Wall Street Journal NASA Watch sources report that Sen. McCain is not against Bridenstine’s nomination.

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

24 responses to “Bridenstine Confirmation: Its Going To Be Close”

  1. JadedObs says:
    0
    0

    Another great example of a tone deaf Administration not even trying to reach out to the other side. [EDITED], Nelson has cited specific concerns about having a non- engineer at the apex of decision making for human space flight missions. Why not respect that concern and nominate a strong technical deputy and NASA insider like Robert Cabana or Robert Lightfoot ?

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      Given how poorly NASA has done under engineer Administrators (Paine, Truly, Golden, Griffin, Bolden), and how well under non-engineer ones (Webb, O’Keefe) you would think being an engineer or an astronaut would be a disqualification for the job.

      • JadedObs says:
        0
        0

        Not sure I’d call O’Keefe a roaring success but the issue Nelso has cited is the need for a NASA Administrator to make a judgement call for launching Crew – something that Griffin had to do on at least one Shuttle mission after the loss of Columbia. Whatever the other merits of their tenures, having someone in NASA’s senior leadership is Nelson’s concern; it’s easily addressed.

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          And does the CEO of United decide if it’s safe for a particular aircraft to fly? Really, it is just that type of micro-management that NASA doesn’t need.

          • JadedObs says:
            0
            0

            If the CEO of United only had 3 or 4 planes, only flew a few times annually and none had flown before, he or she might very well be in the decision loop. Human space flight is not yet a routine activity – and many new systems like Orion and the commercial crew vehicles will be coming online for the first time in the next few years – these are not routine operations.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            There is a big difference between being in the loop and making the decision. As a frequent United passenger, I would definitely not want the CEO making that sort of decision. I would expect him to make sure they had good engineers in their safety program, and have a memo from the appropriate vice president saying those engineers were satisfied. But I’d expect the CEO to say, “I’m not an expert and the experts say it’s ok to fly. So fly.” Where you get into trouble is when the boss isn’t an expert (always true for a sufficiently complex program) but wants to hear the details (in a watered down form, so he can understand it) and insists on making the decision himself.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            the experts say it’s ok to fly. So fly.

            That’s an ironic statement particularly as we approach the anniversary of the Challenger loss.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            It wasn’t meant to be ironic, since it also implies, “if the experts say it isn’t ok, we don’t fly.”

            In the case of Challenger, it was a Thiokol manager who paused a teleconference to privately pressure engineers to stop being so negative about the launch, and another manager who said, “My God, Thiokol, when do you want me to launch – April?” Not to imply the engineers were blameless; Challenger and Columbia we’re both examples of bad decision making on the part of almost everyone involved.

            My point was that senior management isn’t the right level to make technical, engineering decisions. It’s the level where they should be making sure they have good engineers and a corporate culture which lets the engineers say what they think. So I just don’t see engineering experience as a key qualification for senior managers.

          • muomega0 says:
            0
            0

            Two contractions: 1) CEO is not an expert, but must make sure they have good engineers. 2) They ‘get into trouble’ when they want to hear watered down details and make a decision in an area they are not an expert, which means they must agree with the delegated authority– When Two Men in Business Always Agree, One of Them Is Unnecessary No yes ‘men’ are necessary.

            You have redefined the role of a senior manager to fit your predefined solution of someone not qualified for the position.

            “The senior manager, like all managers, is responsible for planning and directing the work of a group of individuals, monitoring their work, and taking corrective action when necessary”–yet they are not experts to take corrective action, nor monitor the work, nor direct the work.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I’m not redefining anyone’s role. I’m describing what I’ve seen of the current practices. For projects I’m familiar with (planetary missions), there are usually five layers of management between the engineers and the NASA administrator. At just one step up that chain, I’ve seen low level managers yell at engineers for “not even speaking English”, i.e. using too many technical terms.

            I’ve never seen reporting all the way up, but consider risk reporting. By the time it gets two or three levels up, a couple of pages of numbers and analysis on a potential risk is boiled down to two numbers (on a scale of one to five, how likely is it and how bad would it be if it happens?) and a color (green, yellow or red.) Since those ratings are subjective judgements, the information conveyed to higher management is qualitative. That’s what I meant about technical details getting watered down.

            Since someone mentioned United Airlines as an example, let’s take a look. The CEO, Mr. Munoz, has a BS in business, a MBA, and all his work experience seems to have been in things like finance and customer relations. He may be a fine CEO, but he’s not the right person to, say, review the redesign which fixed the 787 battery problem. (United’s budget is, by the way, about twice NASA’s.)

            Personally, I’d like to see the engineering details go farther up the chain into NASA management. But beyond some point, there are too many issue and too many fields involved for one person to keep track of and understand at the nuts and bolts level. The Administrator is definitely above that level. As such, I don’t see why engineering experience (or lack there of) is a big issue.

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        Indeed. It is hard to see how astronaut training qualifies one to run a huge Agency. Engineers? Maybe. But a broadly educated policy guy with demonstrated leadership and administrative skills who loves space would be preferable.

        • Daniel Woodard says:
          0
          0

          Or a broadly educated policy gal, like Lori Garver. But the real problem is not micromanagement by the administrator, it is micromanagement by Congress.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            Yes! I’ve been q supporter of Ms. Garver for a long time.

            Our language needs to reassess our personal programs for sure!

    • Michael Genest says:
      0
      0

      No, actually this appears to me like an intransigent Democrat party turning up their nose at everything and anything Trump and company try to do, all in the name of the “resistance”. In this case, Bridenstine’s ‘sins’ amount to failure to comply to strict liberal doctrine regarding climate change and sexual politics. Outrageous. Confirm this guy and let’s get going to the Moon!

    • Johnhouboltsmyspiritanimal says:
      0
      0

      Why does it need to be a rocket scientist at the top? The space council is in charge and making the decisions the NASA admin will just be an implementation person of the plan. Knowing how to dance the Potomac twos step worked well for Webb to get us to the moon so maybe bridenstine connections will help get us back.
      Cabana and Lightfoot are too invested in stay the course and not open to what it will take to get boots on the moon by end of 2024.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      Sen. Nelson’s opposition smells a lot like Not Made Here.

      My cat loves to jump in my lap for a few minutes of petting. But just try picking her up for the same thing. She only likes it when it’s her idea.

      • JadedObs says:
        0
        0

        Well we can all be cynical about motivations but I’d ask you to consider that Nelson has been committed to NASA and space for longer than Bridenstine has been alive. Nothing says that every Presidential appointee gets to be confirmed – this is the Senate’s Constitutional role – and while I am less sympathetic to social issue objections to Bridenstine, that’s not what Nelson has put forth as his biggest objection – and it’s a concern the White House could easily fix.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          In the past, possibly the distant past but still in this century, Senators gave the President and his appointee the benefit of the doubt. That is, voting yes unless they saw a real problem. In this case, it seems most of the no votes will be based on seeing “Trump appointed him” as the real problem.

  2. Mark Thompson says:
    0
    0

    Rubio better watch out, Space is not a Trump priority, if this admin is blocked, NASA may be put on the back burner for a long time. Both Florida and Alabama senators should support him since the alternative is leaving the post effectively vacant.