[Frank_Discussion]

"I guarantee that there would be a lot fewer failures if there were employment/funding consequences of those failures."

Your guarantee is worthless. Private R&D flops all the time, and is a good thing. Government R&D does too, all the time, and is still a good thing in the long run. Failure is the cost of learning.

Fiscal responsibility does not reduce the level of failure. Heads rolling for failure is counterproductive, and is why you didn't see mass firings after Columbia went down, just slapping hands doesn't cut it. Corporations invest in talent and keep that investment as long as possible even when it fails. You try to find out what went wrong, find some way to fold it back into your experience base, and then move on.

That said, I agree that private enterprise should step up to the plate. It is. If NASA is smart, it will take advantage of this, and broaden the effort to effect a lot more of us in a direct, positive way.

Oh, also:

"I'm what would be considered a paleocon."

So If I don't agree, then I'm a "neocon", right? C'mon, sheesh.

[from occupied ga]

Private R&D flops all the time, and is a good thing.

But it isn't a direct expense to the taxpayers when it does.

Government R&D does too, all the time, and is still a good thing in the long run.

No way is this good. For one thing the same ijits who screwed up the Hubble telescope (supposed to cost $200 million but actually cost $1.8 billion) are still in NASA. (except for those who have retired with big fat taxpayer funded government pensions)

Failure is the cost of learning.

Gross oversimplification. If I don't have a clue and keep failing in private industry, then someone competent will eventually step up to the plate (provided the endeavor is worthwhile enough to attract investors). In the government sector all I need to say is we just didn't spend enough and that seems to excuse anything. No consequences to the people who failed, but plenty of consequences to the taxpayers (as always)