Leadership problem at NASA is growing.

[wumpus]

14 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

 The real problem isn't NASA.  The real problem is that space fandoms (among it's many other blind spots) doesn't grasp that NASA isn't Disney.  NASA doesn't exist to entertain you.  NASA is a government agency whose purpose is defined by the policies of the Executive Branch.  In theory.  In practice, over the last twenty years the Executive has largely let that role fall to Congress by default.  (To the point where Congress has been several times recently been emboldened enough to try and convert that de facto control into de jure control.)  Or, to put it another way, we didn't go to the Moon because NASA had vision.  We went to the Moon because Kennedy and LBJ (mostly LBJ) made it a policy of their administration and a national priority.  Congress, for a couple of years anyway, agreed and funded NASA at national priority levels.

It would be a lot easier argue for launching rockets as entertainment.  Just look at the money US cities and states lavish on professional sports stadia, "bread and circuses" has been a means of swaying the people for 2000 years.  The big problem with "NASA isn't Disney" is that Disney provides far more entertainment to more people than NASA ever will (same for the highly subsidized NFL).  It may have twice the budget, but it returns an unbelievable 25% return on those dollars spent.  Don't even think about using the argument "for science": look at the congressional "science committees" and count how many of them ran against science.  "For science" falls not on deaf ears but hostile ones.  SLS at least has the argument as a jobs program (in all the right locations, and has the promise of keeping old jobs instead of promising new ones [politically more useful]), so it gets funded.  Keeping the rest of the programs intact will likely require a different argument or a different congress (and I can't think of a single [electable] candidate running on "science", let alone "space").

17 hours ago, Cassel said:

Problem is lack of idea of what to do. Why would you need SLS when Falcon Heavy works? Using SLS instead of cheaper rocket would be crime against US citizens.

Using SLS is a crime against all taxpayers who may someday have to pay the debts congress is incurring, almost nobody will swing votes over this.  Canceling SLS is a crime against all those employed specifically for SLS and they (and their friends and families) will know exactly who voted to make them unemployed.  Sorry, that's how humans work (the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many).  This is part of the cost of transferring control of NASA to Congress.

[PB666]

Falcon Heavy _is_ working, there is a launch to occur soon with a paying payload.

[Cassel]

43 minutes ago, wumpus said:

 is a crime against all those employed specifically for SLS

I am not from US, but I've thought that slavery is over and being employee is a matter of choice ;-)

 

[kerbiloid]

11 minutes ago, Cassel said:

I've thought that slavery is over and being employee is a matter of choice

It is. And someone can help you make the choice.

[YNM]

9 hours ago, wumpus said:

It would be a lot easier argue for launching rockets as entertainment.

What, the payloads are entertainment ? (alright, given most of them are communications, and most comunications are entertaining... yeah.)