WASHINGTON, December 15 – By any means you might wish to review it, this was a daunting, difficult first year in office for the new, untested NASA Administrator.

His agency came under the microscope of a host of special panels and experts. A major new space program reshuffling was announced. He brought into NASA many a new face, not all of whom had space backgrounds or experience. His own lack of space-related technical expertise was the subject of some personal critique. Said one member of Congress "we wonder if he will be focused only on budget matters, which is, after all, his own background."

The press was also quietly critical. Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine opined "what the (space) agency needs now is technically competent top management." Even some at his own agency whispered doubts that he was the best possible choice to lead NASA. Said some of the same people he would need to lead … this choice was "inappropriate for a technical agency."

Of course, Jim Webb turned out to not only be up to the job, but helped change the course of space history.

That’s right, we are talking about Jim Webb, chosen from a political and budget background to head the civil space agency some 41 years ago. And you thought we were talking about Sean O'Keefe, didn't you?

Much of the same laments voice about Webb can be applied to O'Keefe, who now is ending his first year at the helm of civil space leadership. And make no mistake, O'Keefe is setting this administration's space agenda.

In the previous administration, the mantra was "it's the economy, stupid."

In this one, one might say "it's the decisions, stupid."

As was recently discussed by Daniel Henniger in the Wall Street Journal, the difference between the previous administration and this one isn't just the lack of so-called ‘brilliance". President Clinton, according to many a beltway sycophant, was brilliant. Say what you may about his tenure, but former NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin was nothing if brilliant as well. But effective? Ah, that's another story.

Henninger suggests that in Bush's MBA-Presidency, it's less about genius and more about results. In other words, making decisions, being accountable, and reaching goals. Henninger said "the MBA President seems to have a knack for surrounding himself with people who've proven good at absorbing the best lessons from both worlds (business and government), and producing results in both. Maybe that's why his Presidency is succeeding rather than floundering."

And perhaps that's why O'Keefe found himself, as he told me one afternoon last summer, on the receiving end of a call from one of his mentors, who just happened to be the Vice-President of the United States, asking him to leave OMB to head NASA. It's about making decisions, stupid.

And I'd suspect that his reward for such high expectations is to set a long-term course for the administration's space agenda. A careful reading of the recent report of the Commission on the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Industry would show that not only is there nothing contained in that report that would either embarrass O'Keefe - or set too high a bar for NASA to reach (or DoD for that matter), but parts of it could have just as well been written by NASA itself.

When the time comes, we also expect that the new White House Space Policy will also indirectly favor O'Keefe - and that it will not set him up for crash programs, unclear mandates, accelerated or dubious outcomes, or any other such unattainable goals. One wonders is we'll hear the term "partnership" yet again? Instead, O'Keefe's first year has been dedicated to fixing broken programs, fixing and then beefing up management, and reconnecting his agency's reputation with the Hill and the public. To repeat a phrase often used on the 9th floor of NASA headquarters "NASA needs to get out of the penalty box".

In that, clearly O'Keefe's effectiveness remains a work in progress. His relations with Capitol Hill will need attention almost every day to offset the damage done by the Goldin Administration's excesses. They will also need to be honed to utmost perfection so as to allow an aggressive set of budget amendments and large scale programmatic shifts to run the gauntlet put forth by Congress in the year ahead.

Oh yes: the public at large out there (lest we forget) probably has no clue what it expects from his agency-other than no disasters or budget black holes. At some point, O'Keefe will need to figure out a way to address that, too.

And it might also prove helpful, for a non-spacer at NASA's center, to find some way to get some feedback on the context, insight, and historical background of some of the same directions that his predecessors followed. Issues such as human permanence in space, the quest for reusable vehicles, and preserving industry capabilities have been addressed by many a NASA chief in years gone by-as well as others active in space leadership, too with many a differing result.

In a real sense, O'Keefe must also forge a new consensus of trust with the very industry who builds the space machines that he funds. Despite his friendly and open demeanor, too much parsing of words and tea-leaf reading is required on the part of industry folks trying to figure out if he means what he says.

O'Keefe needs to fashion some tools and techniques so as to better explain his motives-and avoid the misreading that happens when people are still hiding, figuratively, under the table waiting for the next barrage of criticism. Such a "shoot the messenger" approach was Goldin's style, not O'Keefe's. As such, don't expect to hear the words "Uncle Sugar" spat out by NASA at industry for a long while. As for hearing the word "cartel" as has been the case on the 9th floor? Well, that's another matter alltogether.

So, if one reads between the lines which make up the rhetoric of O'Keefe's first year, and reflect upon the names of his closest appointments, it would appear that he has started those repairs with a definable set of goals and with the unqualified support of the person who clearly has been marked with the space 'portfolio'- the Vice President. Just like James Webb four decades ago.

A long time ago, comedians Abbott and Costello had a comedy routine that played on words to suggest that 'who' really was on first base. Asking 'who' didn't help those who didn't know (pardon the expression) the score.

Who's on first?

Make no mistake about it. It's the Irishman from Annapolis.

Whatever he was before he arrived at E Street, he's a spacer now, standing alone at first base.

How far he travels - around second and third base - or if he's headed to score at home plate at all will be the story of the interesting year to come.

SPACELIFT WASHINGTON © 2002 by Frank Sietzen, Jr. The opinions expressed in this column are the author's own, and are not associated with or affiliated with any other organization or group.

News from Commercial Space Watch