Hmm. I am actually interested in a board made of appointees and hired/career/other members. It might be difficult but doable. I also thought that the next NASC should also include members of Congress, Industry and Academia. But I am afraid it might become unmanageable. Still like the idea of a mixed membership though.

BUT the President decides the policy and the Admin enforces it.

And this is exactly why NASA keeps changing directions every eight years and is unable to follow a single comprehensive longterm strategy. NASA is subject to the political whims of whoever happens to be occupying the Oval Office. If we want NASA to have a longterm plan then Congress is going to have to pass legislation reorganizing NASA so that the change of political winds can be minimized. A space policy board overseeing NASA would be one way to do it. It could be set up do that the President can nominate several board members but the other members are selected through other mechanisms. Under the current act as you have linked to the board is advisory body only.

Well. Nobody but the President has any authority in that matter. Since the board according to your suggestion has to deal in a political capacity with Congress and the WH it further reinforces that NASC is the way to go. I am sure you already saw that but just in case: http://history.nasa.gov/spaceact.html

The Admin should not deal with technical issues. That is the responsibility of the Chief Engineer. The Admin by definition is an administrator. He should sit at the board/council/whatever and be part of the conversation. BUT the President decides the policy and the Admin enforces it. The board is here to facilitate the implementation with all the stakeholders, e.g. DOD, DOE, NSF, etc.

NASC would really have an advisory role only. The council would have virtually no authority to enforce its recommendations. By giving a board the ability to select the administrator makes that position more accountable to the board and would help guide NASA through long term policy.

I am not sure about a career Admin but let’s hope that the revived National Air and Space Council will do what you suggest. I believe it was (in part) its goal back in 1958…

Lol! I have to hand it to you Ferris! You are persistent! And I myself still advocate for a national space policy board to oversee NASA with the administrator job as a hired position rather than an appointed one. This way the Administrator can focus on the technical program and day to day management. The board can deal with the politics from Congress and WHite House, NASA’s budget with OMB, and guiding a continuous, comprehensive, longterm space policy.

But O’Brien is inaccurate here:

“Without a boss, NASA doesn’t have a seat at the table. Over time, this could hurt the agency…”

That’s simply not true. An acting Administrator is consulted on and debates the same issues as a confirmed Administrator and attends the same meetings.

Others “at the table” may not take what an acting Administrator says as seriously as a confirmed Administrator because it’s assumed he’ll only be there a short while. But the acting Administrator has a seat at the table nonetheless.

FWIW…

I still say Lennard Fisk would be great