Bryan Preston has some heartburn over some of my space commentary (I'm not sure exactly which, because he doesn't provide any specific links).

I guess my problem with Simberg is that he focuses exclusively on the manned space flight program, and just ignores everything else that NASA does.

That's because I don't have that much of a problem with the other things that NASA does (though I think that the aeronautics program has a lot of problems as well). What JPL does is great, for the most part, though they could do it even better if launch were lower cost and more available. Hubble is one of the many things that NASA has done that is worthwhile, even with the initial cockup.

But my point is that there is more to space than science, and 1) NASA is unwilling to recognize it, and doesn't do those non-science things very well, yet it receives exhorbitant funding for them and 2) NASA pretends that the manned space program in particular is about science, when it is certainly not--it is about jobs and national prestige.

The manned flight program is usually the most visible part of NASA, but the science mission is arguably the most important-- that's where most of the real ground-breaking research is taking place. And with programs like Hubble that require in-orbit servicing, you can't have one without the other at this stage. NASA will evolve into whatever the American taxpayer wants and needs it to be, but calling it "socialistic" and calling for its defunding is just hyperbole without thoughtfulness.

When I (accurately) call NASA that, I am primarily talking about the manned spaceflight portion.

Let's combine manned and scientific: something for everyone. Start a manned observatory ON THE MOON.

That can't be justified on the basis of science, particularly the way NASA does it. We'll get to the Moon when there is some purpose to doing so (like storing nuclear waste).

Rand,

I think you are being to optimistic with regard to NASA.

It is not the first nor the last Federal government bureaucracy to get completely dysfunctional in its intended role.

The proper historic response to that kind of problem is to create a new government agency to do the job the fisrt agency refuses or cannot do.

The NASA response to SDIO's Clementine and DC-X projects is example enough that only outside competition that threatens NASA's existance will get them to move at all. Then once it disappears, they revert to form like memory plastic.

There's big trouble over on the science side, as well.

Authoritarian socialism doesn't work all that well
even for science. The main difference is that the
science side of NASA doesn't draw the same amount
of attention. Both the media and the space
activist community focus more on the human activities.

Consider the relative attention given to the
Challenger disaster and the probes crashing into
Mars.